Who Stole Feminism?: How Women Have Betrayed Women

FEMINISM M HOW WOMEN HAVE BETRAYED WOMEN

CHRISTINA HOFF SOMMERSS

U S $23.00 Can. $29.50 .

.

Philosophy professor Christina Sommers has exposed a disturbing development: how a group of zealots, claiming to speak for all women, are promoting a dangerous new agenda that threatens our most cherished ide-

als and sets women against men in all spheres of life. In case after case, Sommers shows how these extrem-

ists have propped up their arguments with highly questionable but well-funded research, presenting inflammatory and often inaccurate information and stifling any semblance of free and open scrutiny. Trumpeted as orthodoxy, the resulting findings" on everything from rape to "

domestic abuse to economic bias to

the supposed crisis in girls' selfesteem perpetuate a view of women as victims of the patriarchy. Moreover, these arguments and the supposed facts on which they are "

"

based have had enormous influence

beyond the academy, where they have shaken the foundations of our educa-

tional, scientific, and legal institutions and have fostered resentment and

alienation in our private lives. Despite its current dominance, Sommers maintains, such a breed of feminism

is at odds with the real aspirations and values of most American women and undermines the cause of true

equality. Who Stole Feminism? is a call to

arms that will enrage or inspire, but cannot be ignored.

_

L

Christina Hoff Sommers is an associ-

ate professor of philosophy at Clark University who specializes in contemporary moral theory. The editor of two ethics textbooks, she has published numerous professional papers. She has also written articles for The New

Republic, The Wall Street Journal, the Chicago Tribune, and The New England Journal of Medicine, among other publications. She lives in the Boston area.

Jacket design by Jackie Seow Author photograph by Joyce Ravid Printed in the U.S.A. Copyright © 1994 Simon & Schuster

From

WHO STOLE FEMINISM? American feminism is currently dominated by a group of women who seek to persuade the public that American women are not the free creatures we think we are. The leaders and theorists of the women's movement believe

that our society is best described as a patriarchy, a "male hegemony," a "sex/gender system" in which the dominant gender works to keep women cowering and submissive. The feminists who hold this divisive view of our social and political reality believe that we are in a gender war, and they are eager to disseminate stories of atrocity that are designed to alert women to their plight. The "gender feminists" (as I shall be calling them) believe that all our institutions, from the state to the family to the grade schools, perpetuate male dominance. Believing that women are virtually under siege, gender feminists naturally seek recruits to wage their side of the gender war. They seek support. They seek vindication. They seek ammunition. I have been moved to write this book because I am a feminist who does not like what feminism has become. The

new gender feminism is badly in need of scrutiny. Only forthright appraisals can diminish its inordinate and divisive influence. If others will join in a frank and honest critique, before long a more representative and less doctrinaire feminism will again pick up the reins. But that is not likely to happen without a fight. w 11

D

1

52300

i

9"780671,79424J

ISBN

0-1,71

fi

Who Stole Feminism? How Women Have Betrayed Women

Christina Hoff Sommer s Simon & Schuster New York Sydney

London Tokyo

Toronto Singapore

SIMON & SCHUSTER Rockefeller Center 1230 Avenue of the Americas New York, New York 10020 Copyright © 1994 by Christina Sommers All rights reserved, including the right to reproduce this book or portions thereof in any form whatsoever. SIMON & SCHUSTER and colophon are registered trademarks of Simon & Schuster Inc. Designed by Levavi & Levavi Manufactured in the United States of America 10

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Sommers, Christina Hoff. Who stole feminism? : how women have betrayed women / Christina Hoff Sommers. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. 1. Feminism—Philosophy. 2. Feminism—United States—History. I. Title. HQ1154.S613 1994 305.42'0973—dc20 94-4734 CIP ISBN: 0671-79424-8 The charts that appear on pages 246 and 247 are reprinted by permission of The Com­ monwealth Fund, a New York-based national philanthropic organization.

Acknowledgments

Of the m a n y friends w h o h e l p e d m e I single o u t those w h o read a n d criticized the m a n u s c r i p t at various stages: Martin Boer, Robert Costrell, Barbara Ellis, J o h n Ellis, Ronni G o r d o n , D o n Klein, Erika Kors, Evelyn Rich, Gail Savitz, David Stillman, Abigail T h e r n s t r o m , a n d S t e p h a n Thernstrom. I a m grateful to D a w n Baker, an u n d e r g r a d u a t e at Boston University, Peter Welsh, a political science graduate s t u d e n t at Boston College, a n d Alex Stillman, an u n d e r g r a d u a t e at J o h n s H o p k i n s . They checked facts and looked for p r i m a r y sources, w h i c h were m o r e often than n o t difficult to trace. Special t h a n k s also to Hilary Olsen for her m a n y h o u r s of proof­ reading, editing, a n d retyping. I a m obliged to Lynn C h u a n d Glen Hartley for having urged m e to undertake this book. My editor, Rebecca Saletan, has been s u p e r b t h r o u g h o u t the two years I took in writing it. Denise Roy a n d Jay Schweitzer ably s h e p h e r d e d the b o o k t h r o u g h the editorial a n d p r o d u c ­ tion processes.

8

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Louise Hoff, m y sister, traveled with m e to m a n y feminist conferences, into t h e very d e n s of t h e lionesses, providing m u c h n e e d e d moral s u p ­ port. O u r m o t h e r , Dolores Hoff, has s h o w n us b o t h that being a feminist has n o t h i n g to d o w i t h resenting m e n . It is easy e n o u g h to get grants for feminist research aimed at showing h o w w o m e n are being s h o r t c h a n g e d a n d "silenced" by the male establish­ m e n t . It is n o t so easy to receive grants for a study that criticizes the feminist establishment for its errors a n d excesses. The Lynde a n d Harry Bradley F o u n d a t i o n , the Carthage F o u n d a t i o n , a n d the J o h n M. Olin F o u n d a t i o n believed that w h a t I h a d to say was important, a n d I thank t h e m for their gracious a n d g e n e r o u s s u p p o r t for this project. I could n o t have written this b o o k w i t h o u t their aid a n d cooperation, n o r without the s u p p o r t of Clark University, w h i c h allowed m e a two-year leave a n d a w a r d e d m e a Mellon Faculty Development Grant a n d a Higgins Research Grant. N u m e r o u s o t h e r s — t o o n u m e r o u s to identify h e r e — s u p p o r t e d m e morally a n d intellectually. They k n o w well w h o they are a n d k n o w as well h o w thankful I a m . I apologize for n o t acknowledging t h e m by n a m e . A great deal of w h a t is valuable a n d right about Who Stole Feminism? is d u e to the w i s d o m , e n c o u r a g e m e n t , a n d unfailing assistance of m y h u s ­ b a n d , Fred S o m m e r s . My views o n feminism are controversial, a n d w h e n those w h o d o n o t take well to criticism react by maligning m e rather than m y a r g u m e n t , Fred helps m e stay calm a n d clear. I a m grateful to m y stepson, Tamler Sommers, w h o s e twenty-threeyear-old perspective saved m e m o r e than once from w h a t he assured m e were m i s g u i d e d efforts at h u m o r . This b o o k is dedicated to Fred, to Tamler, a n d to m y nine-year-old son, David S o m m e r s , w h o is, I suspect, delighted to see the last of its writing.

Contents

Preface

11

1. Women Under Siege 19 2. Indignation, Resentment, and Collective Guilt 3. Transforming the Academy 4. New Epistemologies

50

74

5. The Feminist Classroom

87

6. A Bureaucracy of One's Own 118 7. The Self-Esteem Study 137 8. The Wellesley Report: A Gender at Risk 9. Noble Lies 188 10. Rape Research 209 11. The Backlash Myth 227 12. The Gender Wardens 255 Notes 276 Index 307

157

41

Preface

In Revolution from Within, Gloria Steinem informs h e r readers that "in this country alone . . . a b o u t 150,000 females die of anorexia each y e a r . " That is m o r e t h a n three times the a n n u a l n u m b e r of fatalities from car accidents for the total population. Steinem refers readers to a n o t h e r fem­ inist best-seller, N a o m i W o l f s The Beauty Myth. A n d in Ms. W o l f s b o o k one again finds the statistic, along w i t h the author's outrage. " H o w , " she asks, "would America react to the mass self-immolation b y h u n g e r of its favorite s o n s ? " Although " n o t h i n g justifies comparison w i t h the H o l o ­ caust," she cannot refrain from m a k i n g o n e anyway. " W h e n confronted with a vast n u m b e r of emaciated bodies starved n o t by n a t u r e b u t by m e n , one m u s t notice a certain r e s e m b l a n c e . " W h e r e did Ms. Wolf get her figures? H e r source is Fasting Girls: The Emergence of Anorexia Nervosa as a Modern Disease* by J o a n Brumberg, a historian a n d former director of w o m e n ' s studies at Cornell University. Brumberg, too, is fully aware of the political significance of the startling statistic. She points o u t that the w o m e n w h o s t u d y eating p r o b l e m s "seek 1

2

3

12

PREFACE

to d e m o n s t r a t e that these disorders are an inevitable consequence of a misogynistic society that d e m e a n s w o m e n . . . by objectifying their b o d i e s . " Professor Brumberg, in t u r n , attributes the figure to the Ameri­ can Anorexia a n d Bulimia Association. I called the American Anorexia a n d Bulimia Association a n d s p o k e to Dr. Diane Mickley, its president. " W e were misquoted," she said. In a 1 9 8 5 newsletter the association h a d referred to 150,000 to 2 0 0 , 0 0 0 suf­ ferers (not fatalities) of anorexia nervosa. W h a t is the correct m o r b i d i t y rate? Most experts are reluctant to give exact figures. O n e clinician told m e that of 1,400 patients she h a d treated in ten years, four h a d d i e d — a l l t h r o u g h suicide. The National Center for Health Statistics r e p o r t e d 101 deaths from anorexia nervosa in 1983 a n d 6 7 d e a t h s in 1 9 8 8 . T h o m a s D u n n of the Division of Vital Statistics at the National C e n t e r for Health Statistics reports that in 1991 there were 5 4 d e a t h s from anorexia nervosa a n d n o deaths from bulimia. The deaths of these y o u n g w o m e n are a tragedy, certainly, b u t in a country of o n e h u n d r e d million a d u l t females, s u c h n u m b e r s are hardly evidence of a "holocaust." Yet n o w the false figure, s u p p o r t i n g the view that o u r "sexist society" d e m e a n s w o m e n by objectifying their bodies, is widely accepted as true. A n n Landers repeated it in h e r syndicated c o l u m n in April 1992: "Every year, 1 5 0 , 0 0 0 A m e r i c a n w o m e n die from complications associated with anorexia a n d b u l i m i a . " I sent N a o m i Wolf a letter p o i n t i n g out that Dr. Mickley h a d said she was mistaken. Wolf sent m e w o r d o n February 3, 1 9 9 3 , that she intends to revise h e r figures o n anorexia in a later edition of The Beauty Myth. Will s h e actually state that the correct figure is less than o n e h u n d r e d per year? A n d will s h e correct the implications she d r e w from the false report? For e x a m p l e , will s h e revise her thesis that masses of y o u n g w o m e n are being "starved n o t by n a t u r e b u t by m e n " a n d her declaration that " w o m e n m u s t claim anorexia as political damage d o n e to us by a social o r d e r that considers o u r destruction i n s i g n i f i c a n t . . . as Jews identify the death c a m p s " ? Will Ms. Steinem advise h e r readers of the egregious statistical error? Will Ms. Landers? Will it even matter? By n o w , the 150,000 figure has m a d e it into college textbooks. A recent w o m e n ' s studies text, aptly titled The Knowledge Explosion, contains the erroneous figure in its preface. T h e anorexia "crisis" is only o n e s a m p l e of the kind of provocative b u t inaccurate information b e i n g p u r v e y e d b y w o m e n about "women's issues" these days. O n N o v e m b e r 4 , 1 9 9 2 , Deborah Louis, president of the Na­ tional W o m e n ' s Studies Association, sent a message to the W o m e n ' s Stud5

6

7

8

9

10

PREFACE

13

ies Electronic Bulletin Board: "According to [the] last March of Dimes report, domestic violence (vs. p r e g n a n t w o m e n ) is n o w responsible for m o r e birth defects t h a n all other causes c o m b i n e d . Personally [this] strikes m e as the m o s t disgusting piece of data I've seen in a long w h i l e . " This was, indeed, unsettling news. But it s e e m e d implausible. I asked m y neighbor, a pediatric neurologist at Boston's Children's Hospital, a b o u t the report. He told m e that although severe battery m a y occasionally cause miscarriage, h e h a d never heard of battery as a significant cause of birth defects. Yet on February 2 3 , 1 9 9 3 , Patricia Ireland, president of the Na­ tional Organization of W o m e n , m a d e a similar claim d u r i n g a PBS inter­ view with Charlie Rose: "Battery of p r e g n a n t w o m e n is the n u m b e r o n e cause of birth defects in this country." I called the March of Dimes to get a copy of the report. Maureen Corry, director of the March's Education a n d Health Promotion Program, d e n i e d any knowledge of it. " W e have never seen this research before," she said. I did a search a n d found t h a t — s t u d y or n o study—journalists a r o u n d the country were citing it. 11

Domestic violence is the leading cause of birth defects, m o r e than all other medical causes c o m b i n e d , according to a March of Dimes study. (Boston Globe, September 2, 1991) Especially grotesque is the brutality reserved for p r e g n a n t w o m e n : the March of Dimes has c o n c l u d e d that the battering of w o m e n d u r i n g pregnancy causes m o r e birth defects than all the diseases p u t together for w h i c h children are usually i m m u n i z e d . (Time magazine, J a n u a r y 18, 1993) The March of Dimes has c o n c l u d e d that the battering of w o m e n d u r i n g pregnancy causes m o r e birth defects than all the diseases p u t together for w h i c h children are usually i m m u n i z e d . (Dallas Morning News, February 7, 1993) The March of Dimes says battering d u r i n g pregnancy causes m o r e birth defects t h a n all diseases for w h i c h children are i m m u n i z e d . (Arizona Republic, March 2 1 , 1993) The March of Dimes estimates that domestic violence is the largest single cause of birth defects. (Chicago Tribune, April 18, 1993) I called the March of Dimes again. Andrea Ziltzer of their media relations d e p a r t m e n t told m e that the r u m o r was s p i n n i n g out of control. Gover-

14

PREFACE

n o r s ' offices, state health d e p a r t m e n t s , a n d W a s h i n g t o n politicians had flooded the office w i t h p h o n e calls. Even the office of Senator Edward K e n n e d y h a d r e q u e s t e d a copy of the "report." The March of Dimes h a d asked Time for a retraction. For s o m e reason, Time was stalling. W h e n I finally reached J e a n n e McDowell, w h o h a d written the Time article, the first thing she said was "That was an error." She s o u n d e d genuinely sorry a n d embarrassed. She explained that she is always careful a b o u t checking sources, b u t this time, for s o m e reason, she h a d not. Time was s u p p o s e d to have p r i n t e d a retraction in the letters column, b u t because of a m i x u p , it h a d failed to d o so. Time has since called the March of Dimes' m e d i a relations d e p a r t m e n t to apologize. An official retraction finally a p p e a r e d in the magazine on December 6, 1 9 9 3 , u n d e r the head­ ing "Inaccurate I n f o r m a t i o n . " I asked Ms. McDowell a b o u t h e r source. She h a d relied on information given h e r b y the San Francisco Family Violence Prevention F u n d , w h i c h in t u r n h a d o b t a i n e d it from Sarah Buel, a founder of the domestic violence advocacy project at Harvard Law School w h o n o w heads a d o ­ mestic a b u s e project in M a s s a c h u s e t t s . Ms. Buel h a d obtained it from Caroline W h i t e h e a d , a maternal n u r s e a n d child care specialist in Raleigh, N o r t h Carolina. I called Ms. W h i t e h e a d . "It b l o w s m y m i n d . It is not true," she said. The whole m i x u p began, she explained, w h e n she i n t r o d u c e d Sarah Buel as a speaker at a 1989 conference for n u r s e s a n d social w o r k e r s . In presenting her, Ms. W h i t e ­ h e a d m e n t i o n e d that a c c o r d i n g to s o m e March of Dimes research she had seen, m o r e w o m e n are screened for birth defects than are ever screened for d o m e s t i c battery. "In other w o r d s , w h a t I said was, ' W e screen for battery far less t h a n w e screen for birth defects.' " Ms. W h i t e h e a d h a d said n o t h i n g at all a b o u t battery causing birth defects. "Sarah misunder­ stood m e , " s h e said. Buel w e n t on to p u t the erroneous information into an u n p u b l i s h e d m a n u s c r i p t , w h i c h was t h e n circulated a m o n g family violence professionals. They saw n o reason to d o u b t its authority a n d repeated the claim to o t h e r s . I called Sarah Buel a n d told h e r that it seemed she had misheard Ms. W h i t e h e a d . She w a s surprised. " O h , I m u s t have misunderstood her. I'll have to give h e r a call. She is m y source." She thanked m e for having informed her of the error, p o i n t i n g o u t that she h a d been about to repeat it yet again in a n e w article she was writing. W h y w a s everybody so credulous? Battery responsible for m o r e birth defects t h a n all o t h e r causes c o m b i n e d ? More than genetic disorders such as spina bifida, D o w n s y n d r o m e , Tay-Sachs, sickle-cell anemia? More t h a n congenital h e a r t disorders? More than alcohol, crack, or A I D S — 12

13

14

15

PREFACE

m o r e than all these things combined? W h e r e were the fact-checkers, the editors, the skeptical journalists? Unfortunately, the anorexia statistic a n d the March of Dimes "study" are typical of the quality of information w e are getting o n m a n y w o m e n ' s issues from feminist researchers, w o m e n ' s advocates, a n d journalists. More often than not, a closer look at the s u p p o r t i n g e v i d e n c e — t h e s t u d ­ ies a n d statistics on eating disorders, domestic battery, rape, sexual ha­ rassment, bias against girls in school, wage differentials, or the demise of the nuclear family—will raise grave questions a b o u t credibility, n o t to speak of objectivity. W h e n they engage in exaggeration, oversimplification, a n d obfuscation, the feminist researchers m a y be n o different from s u c h other a d v o ­ cacy groups as the National Rifle Association or the tobacco industry. But w h e n the NRA does a "study that s h o w s . . . ," or the tobacco i n d u s t r y finds "data that s u g g e s t . . . ," journalists are o n their guard. T h e y check sources a n d seek dissenting opinions. In January 1993 n e w s p a p e r s a n d television n e t w o r k s r e p o r t e d an alarming finding: incidence of domestic battery t e n d e d to rise by 4 0 percent on Super Bowl Sunday. NBC, w h i c h was broadcasting the g a m e that year, m a d e special pleas to m e n to stay calm. Feminists called for emergency preparations in anticipation of the expected increase in vio­ lence on J a n u a r y 3 1 . They also used the occasion to drive h o m e the message that maleness a n d violence against w o m e n are s y n o n y m o u s . Nancy Isaac, a Harvard School of Public Health research associate w h o specializes in domestic violence, told the Boston Globe: "It's a day for m e n to revel in their maleness a n d unfortunately, for a lot of m e n that includes being violent toward w o m e n if they w a n t to b e . " Journalists across the country accepted the 4 0 p e r c e n t figure at face value a n d duly reported the bleak tidings. T h e sole exception was Ken Ringle, a reporter at the Washington Post, w h o decided to check o n the sources. As we shall see later in this b o o k , h e quickly found that the story had n o basis in fact. It turns out that Super Bowl S u n d a y is in n o way different from other days in the a m o u n t of domestic violence. T h o u g h Ringle exposed the r u m o r , it h a d d o n e its work: millions of American w o m e n w h o heard a b o u t it are completely u n a w a r e that it is n o t true. W h a t they d o " k n o w " is that American males, especially the sports fans a m o n g them, are a dangerous a n d violent species. To the question " W h y is everyone so credulous?" w e m u s t a d d another: " W h y are certain feminists so eager to p u t m e n in a b a d light?" I shall try to answer b o t h these questions a n d to s h o w h o w the implications affect us all. 1 5

16

16

PREFACE

American feminism is currently d o m i n a t e d by a g r o u p of w o m e n w h o seek to p e r s u a d e the p u b l i c that American w o m e n are not the free creatures w e t h i n k w e are. T h e leaders a n d theorists of the w o m e n ' s m o v e m e n t be­ lieve that o u r society is best described as a patriarchy, a "male hegemony," a "sex/gender system" in w h i c h the d o m i n a n t gender w o r k s to keep w o m e n cowering a n d submissive. T h e feminists w h o hold this divisive view of o u r social a n d political reality believe w e are in a gender war, a n d they are eager to disseminate stories of atrocity that are designed to alert w o m e n to their plight. T h e "gender feminists" (as I shall call them) believe that all o u r institutions, from the state to the family to the grade schools, p e r p e t u a t e male d o m i n a n c e . Believing that w o m e n are virtually u n d e r siege, g e n d e r feminists naturally seek recruits to their side of the gender war. T h e y seek s u p p o r t . T h e y seek vindication. They seek a m m u n i t i o n . N o t everyone, i n c l u d i n g m a n y w o m e n w h o consider themselves femi­ nists, is convinced that c o n t e m p o r a r y American w o m e n live in an oppres­ sive "male h e g e m o n y . " To c o n f o u n d the skeptics a n d persuade the u n d e c i d e d , the g e n d e r feminists are constantly on the lookout for proof, for the s m o k i n g g u n , the telling fact that will drive h o m e to the public h o w p r o f o u n d l y the system is rigged against w o m e n . To rally w o m e n to their cause, it is n o t e n o u g h to r e m i n d u s that m a n y brutal a n d selfish m e n h a r m w o m e n . T h e y m u s t p e r s u a d e u s that the system itself sanctions male brutality. T h e y m u s t convince us that the oppression of w o m e n , sustained from generation to generation, is a structural feature of our society. Well-funded, prestigious organizations as well as individuals are en­ gaged in this enterprise. In 1 9 9 2 , for example, the American Association of University W o m e n a n d the Wellesley College Center for Research on W o m e n a n n o u n c e d findings that o u r schools systematically favor boys a n d are c o n t r i b u t i n g to a d r a m a t i c d r o p in girls' self-esteem. In another study, the C o m m o n w e a l t h F u n d , relying o n polls taken by Louis Harris a n d Associates, s p r e a d the n e w s that 3 7 percent of American w o m e n are psychologically a b u s e d by their h u s b a n d s or partners every year and that " 4 0 p e r c e n t of w o m e n . . . experience severe depression in a given w e e k . " As w e shall see, these alarming reports have little more basis in fact t h a n did the S u p e r Bowl hoax. 17

I recently told a friend that I was coming across a lot of mistakes a n d misleading data in feminist studies. "It's a mess," I said. "Are you sure you w a n t to write a b o u t it?" s h e asked. "The far right will use what you

PREFACE

17

find to attack all w o m e n . It will h a r m the w o m e n w h o are w o r k i n g in such p r o b l e m areas as battery a n d wage discrimination. W h y d o anything to endanger o u r fragile gains?" My friend's questions were sobering, a n d I w a n t to u n d e r s c o r e at the outset that I d o not m e a n to confuse the w o m e n w h o w o r k in the trenches to help the victims of true a b u s e a n d discrimination w i t h the g e n d e r feminists w h o s e falsehoods a n d exagger­ ations are m u d d y i n g the waters of American feminism. These feminist ideologues are helping n o one; on the contrary, their divisive a n d resent­ ful p h i l o s o p h y a d d s to the woes of o u r society a n d h u r t s legitimate fem­ inism. N o t only are w o m e n w h o suffer real a b u s e n o t helped by u n t r u t h s , they are in fact h a r m e d by inaccuracies a n d exaggerations. For example, as Ms. W h i t e h e a d noted, m o r e w o m e n are screened for birth defects than for battery. She was touching on a terribly i m p o r t a n t problem. Battery is still n o t taken seriously e n o u g h as a medical p r o b l e m . Most hospitals have p r o c e d u r e s to avoid discharging patients at high risk of suffering a relapse of the condition for w h i c h they are being treated. Yet few hospitals have p r o c e d u r e s that w o u l d p u t w o m e n likely to suffer further abuse in t o u c h with the professional services that could h e l p t h e m avoid it, a real a n d shocking p r o b l e m . That battery is the chief cause of birth defects is p e r h a p s m o r e shocking, b u t it is u n t r u e . T h e March of Dimes has developed an excellent hospital "Protocol of Care for the Bat­ tered W o m a n . " W o u l d n ' t it have been m o r e effective to publicize the p r o b l e m that Ms. W h i t e h e a d h a d actually talked a b o u t a n d p r o m o t e d the March of Dimes' solution? True, the alleged findings h a d great value as gender feminist p r o p a g a n d a . But, being incorrect, they could lead to nothing constructive in the way of alleviating the actual suffering of women.

American w o m e n owe an incalculable d e b t to the classically liberal feminists w h o came before u s a n d fought long a n d h a r d , a n d ultimately with spectacular success, to gain for w o m e n the rights that the m e n of this country h a d taken for granted for over two h u n d r e d years. Exposing the hypocrisy of the g e n d e r feminists will n o t jeopardize those achieve­ ments. Battered w o m e n d o n ' t n e e d u n t r u t h s to m a k e their case before a fair-minded public that hates a n d despises bullies; there is e n o u g h tragic truth to go a r o u n d . W i t h that in m i n d , I shall evaluate here the views of s u c h feminists as Gloria Steinem, Patricia Ireland, Susan Faludi, Marilyn French, N a o m i Wolf, a n d Catharine MacKinnon a n d the findings that inform t h e m . I

18

PREFACE

shall take a look at the feminist institutions that n o w control large areas of information a b o u t w o m e n . I shall take n o t e of overly trusting journal­ ists a n d the m a n y politicians w h o are eager to s h o w that they "get it." Above all, I shall e x a m i n e the philosophy, the beliefs, a n d the passions of the feminist theorists a n d r e s e a r c h e r s — t h e ones w h o d o the "studies that s h o w . . . " a n d w h o p r o v i d e the m o v e m e n t its intellectual leadership. These articulate, energetic, a n d d e t e r m i n e d w o m e n are training a genera­ tion of y o u n g activists. All indications are that the n e w crop of y o u n g feminist ideologues c o m i n g o u t of o u r nation's colleges are even angrier, m o r e resentful, a n d m o r e indifferent to the truth t h a n their mentors. T h e large majority of w o m e n , including the majority of college w o m e n , are distancing themselves from this anger a n d resentfulness. Unfortu­ nately, they associate these attitudes w i t h feminism, a n d so they conclude that they are n o t really feminists. According to a 1992 Time/CNN poll, a l t h o u g h 5 7 p e r c e n t of the w o m e n r e s p o n d i n g said they believed there was a n e e d for a s t r o n g w o m e n ' s m o v e m e n t , 6 3 percent said they d o not consider themselves feminists. A n o t h e r poll c o n d u c t e d by R. H. Brushk i n r e p o r t e d that only 16 p e r c e n t of college w o m e n "definitely" con­ sidered themselves to b e feminists. 18

19

In effect, the g e n d e r feminists lack a grass roots constituency. They b l a m e a m e d i a "backlash" for the defection of the majority of w o m e n . But w h a t h a p p e n e d is clear e n o u g h : the gender feminists have stolen "femin­ ism" from a m a i n s t r e a m that h a d never acknowledged their leadership. T h e w o m e n currently m a n n i n g — w o m a n n i n g — t h e feminist ramparts d o n o t take well to criticism. H o w could they? As they see it, they are dealing w i t h a massive e p i d e m i c of male atrocity a n d a constituency of b e n i g h t e d w o m e n w h o have yet to c o m p r e h e n d the seriousness of their p r e d i c a m e n t . H e n c e , male critics m u s t b e "sexist" a n d "reactionary," and female critics "traitors," "collaborators," or "backlashers." This kind of reaction has h a d a powerful inhibiting effect. It has alienated a n d silenced w o m e n a n d m e n alike. I have b e e n m o v e d to write this b o o k because I a m a feminist w h o d o e s n o t like w h a t feminism has b e c o m e . The n e w gender feminism is badly in n e e d of scrutiny. O n l y forthright appraisals can diminish its inordinate a n d divisive influence. If others join in a frank a n d honest critique, before long a m o r e representative a n d less doctrinaire feminism will again p i c k u p t h e reins. But that is n o t likely to h a p p e n without a fight.

Chapter 1

Women Under Siege c4 The New Feminism emphasizes

the importance of the

"women's point of view," the Old Feminism believes in the primary importance of the human

being.

— W I N I F R E D HOLTBY,

1926

1

A surprising n u m b e r of clever a n d powerful feminists share the conviction that American w o m e n still live in a patriarchy w h e r e m e n collectively keep w o m e n d o w n . It is customary for these feminists to assemble to exchange stories a n d to talk a b o u t the "anger issues" that vex them. O n e such c o n f e r e n c e — " O u t of the Academy a n d Into the W o r l d w i t h Carolyn H e i l b r u n " — t o o k place at the Graduate Center of City University of N e w York in O c t o b e r 1992. The m o r n i n g sessions were devoted to h o n o r i n g the feminist scholar a n d mystery writer Carolyn H e i l b r u n o n the occasion of her voluntary retirement from Columbia University after thirty-two years of tenure. I h a d j u s t then b e e n reading Marilyn French's The War Against Women, w h i c h Ms. Heilbrun touts on the cover as a b o o k that "lays out w o m e n ' s state in this w o r l d — a n d it is a state of s i e g e . " Intelligent w o m e n w h o sincerely believe that American w o m e n are in a gender war intrigue m e , so a day with Ms. Heilbrun a n d her admirers promised to be rewarding. I arrived early, b u t so did an overflow c r o w d of m o r e than five h u n d r e d w o m e n . I was lucky to get a seat. 2

20

W H O

STOLE

FEMINISM?

T h o u g h she h a d long held a prestigious chair in Columbia's English d e p a r t m e n t , Heilbrun m a d e it clear that she felt beleaguered there. But she h a d survived. "In life, as in fiction," she told the New York Times, " w o m e n w h o speak o u t usually e n d u p p u n i s h e d or dead. I'm lucky to escape w i t h m y p e n s i o n a n d a year of l e a v e . " Thirty-two years ago, there w e r e n o t e n u r e d female professors in Columbia's English d e p a r t m e n t . N o w eight of its thirty-two t e n u r e d professors are w o m e n , a n d a majority of its j u n i o r professors are w o m e n . According to the Times, such facts d o n o t impress Heilbrun. "Female doesn't m e a n feminist," she s n a p p e d . As if to u n d e r s c o r e that C o l u m b i a was intent o n slighting her, Professor Heilbrun accused the male a n d female m e m b e r s of the Columbia English d e p a r t m e n t of deliberately scheduling their o w n feminist conference on the s a m e day as the conference h o n o r i n g her. T h e Chronicle of Higher Education later r e p o r t e d that Ms. Heilbrun was mistaken: the rival confer­ ence, " W o m e n at the T u r n of the Century: 1 8 9 0 - 1 9 1 0 , " had been p l a n n e d m a n y m o n t h s before this o n e . Heilbrun's t h e m e of "siege" set the tone for the rest of the conference. As the Chronicle p u t it, "If s o m e o n e as p r o m i n e n t as Ms. Heilbrun could feel so 'isolated a n d p o w e r l e s s ' . . . w h e r e did that leave other feminists?" O n e a d m i r e r of Ms. Heilbrun, Professor Pauline Bart of the University of Illinois, s p o k e of H e i l b r u n a n d herself as victims of mass persecution: "Carolyn [Heilbrun] a n d p e o p l e like us will survive, from the outside if need be. O n e of m y male s t u d e n t s , a Chilean refugee, a n d his wife j u s t h a d a baby. They n a m e d h i m Paolo, after m e , because his father fought b a c k a n d w a s t o r t u r e d u n d e r Pinochet, a n d h e sees m e carrying on in that t r a d i t i o n . " 3

4

5

6

7

T h r o u g h o u t the day, speakers recited tales of outrage a n d w a r n e d of i m p e n d i n g male backlash. Sarah Ruddick, a N e w School for Social Re­ search feminist k n o w n for "valorizing" w o m e n as the gentle n u r t u r e r s of o u r species, p a i d tribute to Heilbrun's "politicized anger": " O u r anger, as Carolyn p u t s it so well, arouses the patriarchy to disgust." The historian Blanche W i e s e n C o o k ( w h o h a d j u s t released a b o o k in w h i c h she claimed that Eleanor Roosevelt w a s really a lesbian) spoke of the vital stake w o m e n h a d in the i m p e n d i n g 1 9 9 2 presidential election: "It is a cross-road that will lead to a F o u r t h Reich or a real o p p o r t u n i t y . " J a n e Marcus, of the City University of N e w York, called the afternoon "Anger Session" to order, i n t r o d u c i n g herself as "an expert on anger" a n d t h a n k i n g H e i l b r u n for teaching h e r "to use m y rage in m y writing." She i n t r o d u c e d the other panelists as angry in o n e way or another: Alice J a r d i n e of Harvard University's French d e p a r t m e n t was "angry and strug-

WOMEN

UNDER

SIEGE

21

gling." Brenda Silver of D a r t m o u t h h a d been "struggling a n d angry since 1972." Catharine Stimpson, former provost at Rutgers a n d recently se­ lected to head the distinguished MacArthur Fellows Program, was intro­ duced as "an enraged a n d engaged intellectual." Gloria Steinem took the m i c r o p h o n e a n d explained w h y she was en­ raged: "I have b e c o m e even m o r e angry . . . the alternative is depression." To deal with patriarchal schools, she r e c o m m e n d e d an " u n d e r g r o u n d system of education," a bartering system in w h i c h a midwife could ex­ change her services "in r e t u r n for Latin American history." Steinem be­ lieves things are so b a d for c o n t e m p o r a r y American w o m e n that w e m i g h t have to consider setting u p centers for training political organizers. For s o m e o n e like m e , w h o does n o t believe that American w o m e n are in a state of siege (and so lacks the basis for the k i n d of anger that drives out depression), the conference was depressing. It was clear that these well-favored w o m e n sincerely felt aggrieved. It was equally clear to m e that the bitter spirits they were dispensing to the American p u b l i c w e r e u n w h o l e s o m e a n d divisive. For w h o m d o these "engaged a n d enraged" w o m e n at the conference speak? W h o is their constituency? It might be said that as academics a n d intellectuals they speak for n o one b u t themselves. But that w o u l d b e to mistake their mission. They see themselves as the second wave of the feminist m o v e m e n t , as the moral v a n g u a r d fighting a w a r to save w o m e n . But d o American w o m e n need to b e saved by anyone? The w o m e n at the Heilbrun conference are the N e w Feminists: articu­ late, p r o n e to self-dramatization, a n d chronically offended. M a n y of the w o m e n on the "Anger" panel were t e n u r e d professors at prestigious u n i ­ versities. All h a d fine a n d expensive educations. Yet, listening to t h e m one w o u l d never guess that they live in a country w h o s e w o m e n are legally as free as the m e n a n d w h o s e institutions of higher learning n o w have m o r e female than male students. It was inevitable that s u c h single-minded a n d energetic w o m e n w o u l d find their way into leadership positions. It is unfortunate for American feminism that their ideology a n d attitude are diverting the w o m e n ' s m o v e m e n t from its true p u r p o s e s . The p r e s u m p t i o n that m e n are collectively engaged in keeping w o m e n d o w n invites feminist b o n d i n g in a resentful c o m m u n i t y . W h e n a Heil­ b r u n or a Steinem advises us that m e n are n o t a b o u t to relinquish their hegemony, the implicit moral is that w o m e n m u s t form self-protective enclaves. In such enclaves w o m e n can speak o u t safely a n d help o n e another to recover from the indignities they suffer u n d e r patriarchy. In 8

22

W H O

STOLE

FEMINISM?

s u c h enclaves they can t h i n k of h o w to change or provide alternatives to the "androcentric" institutions that have always prevailed in education a n d the workplace. T h e message is that w o m e n m u s t be "gynocentric," that they m u s t j o i n w i t h a n d b e loyal only to w o m e n . T h e traditional, classically liberal, humanistic feminism that was initi­ ated m o r e t h a n 150 years ago was very different. It h a d a specific agenda, d e m a n d i n g for w o m e n the s a m e rights before the law that m e n enjoyed. T h e suffrage h a d to be w o n , a n d the laws regarding property, marriage, divorce, a n d child custody h a d to be m a d e equitable. More recently, abortion rights h a d to b e protected. T h e old mainstream feminism con­ centrated o n legal reforms. In seeking specific a n d achievable ends, it did n o t p r o m o t e a gynocentric stance; self-segregation of w o m e n had n o part in an agenda that s o u g h t equality a n d equal access for w o m e n . Most American w o m e n subscribe philosophically to that older "First W a v e " k i n d of feminism w h o s e m a i n goal is equity, especially in politics a n d education. A First W a v e , "mainstream," or "equity" feminist wants for w o m e n w h a t she w a n t s for everyone: fair treatment, w i t h o u t discrim­ ination. " W e ask n o better laws than those you have m a d e for yourselves. W e n e e d n o other protection t h a n that w h i c h your present laws secure to you," said Elizabeth C a d y Stanton, p e r h a p s the ablest e x p o n e n t of equity feminism, addressing the N e w York State Legislature in 1 8 5 4 . T h e equity agenda m a y n o t yet b e fully achieved, b u t by any reasonable measure, equity feminism has t u r n e d o u t to b e a great American success story. Heilbrun, Steinem, a n d other current feminist notables ride this First W a v e for its p o p u l a r i t y a n d its moral authority, b u t most of t h e m adhere to a n e w , m o r e radical, "Second W a v e " doctrine: that w o m e n , even m o d ­ ern American w o m e n , are in thrall to "a system of male d o m i n a n c e " variously referred to as "heteropatriarchy" or the sex/gender system. Ac­ cording to o n e feminist theorist, the sex/gender system is "that complex process w h e r e b y bi-sexual infants are transformed into male a n d female g e n d e r personalities, the o n e destined to c o m m a n d , the other to o b e y . " Sex/gender feminism ("gender feminism" for short) is the prevailing ide­ ology a m o n g c o n t e m p o r a r y feminist p h i l o s o p h e r s a n d leaders. But it lacks a grass roots constituency. T h e N e w Feminists claim continuity with the likes of the eighteenthcentury feminist Mary Wollstonecraft or later feminists like the Grimké sisters, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Susan B. Anthony, a n d Harriet Taylor. But those giants of the w o m e n ' s m o v e m e n t g r o u n d e d their feminist de­ m a n d s o n E n l i g h t e n m e n t principles of individual justice. By contrast, the N e w Feminists have little faith in the Enlightenment principles that influ9

10

WOMEN

UNDER

SIEGE

23

enced the founders of America's political order a n d that inspired the great classical feminists to wage their fight for w o m e n ' s rights. The idea that w o m e n are in a g e n d e r w a r originated in the midsixties, w h e n the antiwar a n d antigovernment m o o d revivified a n d redirected the w o m e n ' s m o v e m e n t away from its E n l i g h t e n m e n t liberal p h i l o s o p h y to a m o r e radical, antiestablishment philosophy. T h e decisive battles of the sexual revolution h a d b e e n w o n , a n d s t u d e n t s h e r e a n d o n the C o n t i n e n t were reading Herbert Marcuse, Karl Marx, Franz F a n o n , a n d Jean-Paul Sartre a n d learning h o w to critique their culture a n d institutions in h e a d y n e w ways. They began to see the university, the military, a n d the govern­ m e n t as merely different parts of a defective status q u o . Betty Friedan a n d Germaine Greer w o u l d c o n t i n u e to offer w o m e n a liberal version of consciousness raising w h o s e aim was to a w a k e n t h e m to n e w possibilities of individual self-fulfillment. But by the midseventies, faith in liberal solutions to social p r o b l e m s h a d w a n e d , a n d the old style of consciousness raising that encouraged w o m e n to seek avenues of selffulfillment rapidly gave way to o n e that initiated w o m e n into an appreci­ ation of their subordinate situation in the patriarchy a n d the joys a n d comforts of g r o u p solidarity. Having "transcended" the liberalism of Friedan a n d the fierce individ­ ualism of Greer, feminists began to w o r k seriously o n getting w o m e n to become aware of the political d i m e n s i o n of their lives. Kate Millett's Sexual Politics was critical in m o v i n g feminism in this n e w direction. It taught w o m e n that politics was essentially sexual a n d that even the socalled democracies were male hegemonies: "However m u t e d its p r e s e n t appearance m a y be, sexual d o m i n i o n obtains nevertheless as p e r h a p s the most pervasive ideology of o u r culture a n d provides its m o s t fundamental concept of p o w e r . " The N e w Feminists began to direct their energies toward getting w o m e n to j o i n in the c o m m o n struggle against patriarchy, to view society through the sex/gender prism. W h e n a w o m a n ' s feminist consciousness is thus "raised," she learns to identify her personal self with her gender. She sees her relations to m e n in political terms ("the personal is the political"). This "insight" into the n a t u r e of male/female relations m a k e s the gender feminist impatient with piecemeal liberal reformist solutions a n d leads her to strive for a m o r e radical transformation of o u r society than earlier feminists h a d envisioned. It is n o w c o m m o n p l a c e for feminist p h i l o s o p h e r s to reject the En­ lightenment ideals of the old feminism. According to the University of Colorado feminist theorist Alison Jaggar, "Radical a n d socialist feminists 11

24

W H O

STOLE

FEMINISM?

have s h o w n that the old ideals of freedom, equality a n d democracy are insufficient." Iris Young, of the University of Pittsburgh, echoes the c o n t e m p o r a r y feminist disillusionment with the classically liberal femin­ ism of yesteryear, claiming that "after two centuries of faith . . . the ideal of equality a n d fraternity" n o longer p r e v a i l s : 12

13

Most feminists of the n i n e t e e n t h a n d twentieth century, including feminists of the early second wave, have been h u m a n i s t feminists. In recent years, a different a c c o u n t of w o m e n ' s oppression has gained influence, however, partly growing from a critique of h u m a n ­ ist feminism. Gynocentric feminism defines w o m e n ' s oppression as the devaluation a n d repression of w o m e n ' s experience by a masculinist culture that exalts violence a n d individualism. 14

T h e University of W i s c o n s i n p h i l o s o p h e r Andrea Nye acknowledges that the liberal agenda h a d been successful in gaining w o m e n legal free­ d o m s , b u t she insists that this m e a n s very little, because "the liberated enfranchised w o m a n m i g h t complain that democratic society has only r e t u r n e d her to a m o r e p r o f o u n d s u b o r d i n a t i o n . " T h e loss of faith in classically liberal solutions, coupled with the con­ viction that w o m e n r e m a i n besieged a n d subject to a relentless a n d vi­ cious male backlash, has t u r n e d the m o v e m e n t inward. W e hear very little today a b o u t h o w w o m e n can j o i n with m e n on equal terms to contribute to a universal h u m a n culture. Instead, feminist ideology has taken a divisive, gynocentric t u r n , a n d the emphasis n o w is on w o m e n as a political class w h o s e interests are at o d d s with the interests of m e n . W o m e n m u s t b e loyal to w o m e n , u n i t e d in principled hostility to the males w h o seek to h o l d fast to their patriarchal privileges a n d powers. This clash of "old" a n d " n e w " feminism is itself n o t h i n g new. Here is the British feminist a n d novelist Winifred Holtby writing in 1926: "The N e w F e m i n i s m emphasizes the i m p o r t a n c e of the 'women's point of view,' the O l d F e m i n i s m believes in the p r i m a r y importance of the h u m a n being. . . . Personally I a m . . . an O l d F e m i n i s t . " The old feminism has h a d m a n y e x p o n e n t s , from Elizabeth Cady Stanton a n d Susan B. A n t h o n y in the m i d d l e of the n i n e t e e n t h century to Betty Friedan a n d Germaine Greer in o u r o w n day. It d e m a n d e d that w o m e n be allowed to live as freely as m e n . To m o s t Americans, that was a fair d e m a n d . T h e old feminism w a s neither defeatist n o r gender-divisive, a n d it is even n o w the p h i l o s o p h y of the feminist "mainstream." T h e N e w Feminists, m a n y of t h e m privileged, all of t h e m legally p r o ­ tected a n d free, are p r e o c c u p i e d w i t h their o w n sense of h u r t and their 15

16

WOMEN

UNDER

SIEGE

25

o w n feelings of e m b a t t l e m e n t a n d "siege." W h e n they speak of their personal plight they use w o r d s a p p r o p r i a t e to the tragic plight of m a n y American w o m e n of a bygone day a n d of millions of contemporary, truly oppressed w o m e n in other countries. But their resentful rhetoric dis­ credits the American w o m e n ' s m o v e m e n t today a n d seriously distorts its priorities.

Indeed, o n e of the m a i n hallmarks of the N e w Feminism is its degree of self-preoccupation. Feminists like Elizabeth Stanton a n d Susan B. An­ thony were keenly aware of themselves as privileged, middle-class, p r o ­ tected w o m e n . They u n d e r s t o o d h o w inappropriate it w o u l d b e to equate their struggles with those of less fortunate w o m e n , a n d it never occurred to t h e m to air their p e r s o n a l grievances before the public. During the Clarence T h o m a s - A n i t a Hill hearings, Catharine Mac­ Kinnon, the influential feminist theorist a n d professor of law at the Uni­ versity of Michigan, seized the o p p o r t u n i t y for a "national teach-in" o n feminist perspectives. Calling the Senate's treatment of Ms. Hill "a public hanging," she was q u i c k to p r o m o t e it as an example of h o w w o m e n suffer w h e n other w o m e n are mistreated. She was similarly affected by Patricia Bowman's ordeal in the trial of William Kennedy Smith: W a t c h i n g the second p u b l i c h a n g i n g of a w o m a n w h o accused a powerful m a n of sexual violation reflects the way in w h i c h sexual assault in the United States today resembles lynching in times n o t long past. O n e is lynched a n d r a p e d as a m e m b e r of a socially s u b o r d i n a t e d g r o u p . Each is an act of torture, a violent sexual h u ­ miliation ritual in w h i c h victims are often killed. W h e n it h a p p e n s , the target p o p u l a t i o n cringes, w i t h d r a w s , identifies a n d disidentifies in t e r r o r . 17

That the ordeals of Ms. Hill a n d Ms. B o w m a n were comparable to lynchings is debatable. Although the dire effect they h a d on Ms. Mac­ Kinnon a n d other N e w Feminists m a y n o t be debatable, the alleged r a m ­ ified effect o n all w o m e n , the so-called "target p o p u l a t i o n , " is. In fact, there is n o evidence that m o s t w o m e n , including those w h o believed that the truth lay m o r e w i t h Ms. Hill or Ms. Bowman, felt terrorized or "tar­ geted"; or that they "cringed" or t h o u g h t of themselves as m e m b e r s of a "socially s u b o r d i n a t e d g r o u p . " Alice J a r d i n e ("angry a n d struggling" at the Heilbrun conference) told the Harvard Crimson h o w she reacted to the report that a crazed misogyn-

26

W H O

STOLE

FEMINISM?

ist male h a d j u s t s h o t a n d killed fourteen w o m e n s t u d e n t s at the Univer­ sity of Montreal: " W h a t I saw in the incident in Montreal was the acting o u t of w h a t I experience discursively every day of m y life a n d particularly at this i n s t i t u t i o n . " Ms. J a r d i n e 's claim sets a standard of sisterly e m p a ­ thy that n o t m a n y can h o p e to m a t c h , b u t her exquisite sensibility is paradigmatic for the N e w Feminist. Popular b o o k s advertising motifs of humiliation, subordination, a n d male backlash bolster the doctrine of a bifurcated society in w h i c h w o m e n are t r a p p e d in the sex/gender system. T h e feminists w h o write these b o o k s s p e a k of the sex/gender system as a "lens" that reveals the world in a n e w way, giving t h e m a n e w perspective o n society a n d m a k i n g t h e m authorities o n w h a t facts to "see," to stress, a n d to deplore. Virginia Held, a p h i l o s o p h y professor at the City University of N e w York, r e p o r t e d o n the feminist conviction that feminist philosophers are the initiators of an intellectual revolution comparable to those of "Coper­ nicus, Darwin, a n d F r e u d . " Indeed, as Held points out, "some feminists t h i n k the latest revolution will be even m o r e profound." According to Held, the sex/gender system is the controlling insight of this feminist revolution. Ms. Held tells u s of the impact that the discovery of the sex/ g e n d e r system has h a d o n feminist theory: " N o w that the sex/gender system has b e c o m e visible to u s , w e can see it e v e r y w h e r e . " Indeed, m o s t feminist p h i l o s o p h e r s are "sex/gender feminists," a n d m o s t d o "see it everywhere." Held describes the "intellectually gripping" effect of the n e w perspective. I confess I sometimes envy Held a n d her sister g e n d e r feminists for the excitement they experience from seeing the w o r l d t h r o u g h the lens of sexual politics. O n the other h a n d , I believe that h o w these feminist theorists regard American society is m o r e a matter of t e m p e r a m e n t t h a n a matter of insight into social reality. T h e belief that American w o m e n are living in thrall to m e n seems to suit s o m e w o m e n m o r e t h a n others. I have found that it does not suit m e . A n y o n e reading c o n t e m p o r a r y feminist literature will find a genre of writing c o n c e r n e d w i t h personal outrage. Professor Kathryn Allen Rabuzzi of Syracuse University o p e n s her b o o k Motherself b y recounting this incident: 18

19

20

As I was walking d o w n a sleazy section of Second Avenue in N e w York City a few years ago, a voice s u d d e n l y i n t r u d e d o n m y con­ sciousness: "Hey Mama, spare change?" The w o r d s outraged m e . . . . Although I h a d b y t h e n b e e n a m o t h e r for m a n y years, never till that m o m e n t h a d I seen myself as " M a m a " in s u c h an impersonal, exter-

WOMEN

UNDER

27

SIEGE

nal context. In the m a n ' s speaking I beheld myself anew. " 1 " disap­ peared, as t h o u g h t u r n e d inside out, a n d "Mama" took m y p l a c e . 21

Ms. Rabuzzi informs u s that the p a n h a n d l e r ' s term caused in her a "shocking dislocation of self." Similarly, University of Illinois feminist theorist Sandra Lee Bartky recounts: It is a fine spring day, a n d with an utter lack of self-consciousness, I a m b o u n c i n g d o w n the street. S u d d e n l y . . . catcalls a n d whistles fill the air. These noises are clearly sexual in intent a n d they are m e a n t for m e ; they c o m e from across the street. I freeze. As Sartre w o u l d say, I have been petrified by the gaze of the Other. My face flushes a n d m y m o t i o n s b e c o m e stiff a n d self-conscious. T h e b o d y which only a m o m e n t before I inhabited w i t h s u c h ease n o w floods m y consciousness. I have b e e n m a d e into an object. . . . Blissfully unaware, breasts b o u n c i n g , eyes o n the birds in the trees, I could have passed b y w i t h o u t having b e e n t u r n e d to stone. But I m u s t b e made to k n o w that I a m a "nice piece of ass": I m u s t b e m a d e to see myself as they see m e . T h e r e is an element of c o m p u l s i o n in . . . this being-made-to-be-aware of one's o w n flesh: like being m a d e to apologize, it is humiliating. . . . W h a t I describe seems less the s p o n ­ taneous expression of a healthy eroticism than a ritual of subjuga­ tion. 22

Marilyn French, the a u t h o r of The War Against Women, vulnerable in m u s e u m s :

finds

herself

Artists a p p r o p r i a t e the female b o d y as their subject, their possession . . . assaulting female reality a n d a u t o n o m y . . . . Visiting galleries a n d m u s e u m s (especially the P o m p i d o u Center in Paris) I feel as­ saulted by twentieth-century abstract sculpture that resembles ex­ aggerated female b o d y parts, mainly b r e a s t s . 23

Janet Radcliffe Richards has p o i n t e d to s o m e significant similarities between m o d e r n feminism a n d r e l i g i o n . 1 t h i n k she is right, b u t there is an interesting difference in the public testimony of the adherents. T h e devout tend to confess their sins. By contrast, the feminist ideologue testifies relentlessly to h o w she has b e e n sinned against. Moreover, she sees revelations of monstrosity in the m o s t familiar a n d seemingly i n n o c ­ u o u s p h e n o m e n a . H e r experience of the w o r l d m a y b e c o m p a r e d to that 24

28

W H O

STOLE

FEMINISM?

of the D u t c h naturalist A n t o n i n Van Leeuwenhoek w h e n h e looked for the first time at a d r o p of water t h r o u g h the microscope h e h a d invented a n d saw there a teeming p r e d a t o r y jungle. This, for example, is w h a t Professor Susan McClary, a musicologist at the University of Minnesota, tells u s to listen for in Beethoven's N i n t h S y m p h o n y : "The p o i n t of recapitulation in the first m o v e m e n t of the N i n t h is o n e of the m o s t horrifying m o m e n t s in music, as the carefully p r e p a r e d cadence is frustrated, d a m m i n g u p energy w h i c h finally ex­ plodes in the throttling, m u r d e r o u s rage of a rapist incapable of attaining r e l e a s e . " McClary also directs u s to b e alert to themes of male mastur­ bation in the m u s i c of Richard Strauss a n d Gustav Mahler. T h e "gender w a r " requires a constant flow of h o r r o r stories showing w o m e n that male perfidy a n d female humiliation are everywhere. The g e n d e r feminists w h o expose these evils for us often argue that w h a t appears i n n o c e n t to the u n t r a i n e d perception is in fact degrading to w o m e n . They highlight the p a i n this causes to those feminists w h o are sufficiently aware of w h a t is really going on. Addressing the Scripps College graduating class of 1992, N a o m i Wolf told of a n incident from h e r o w n c o m m e n c e m e n t exercises w h e n she was g r a d u a t e d from Yale eight years before. Dick Cavett, the speaker, h a d m a d e the experience a "graduation from h e l l . " Cavett, himself a Yale a l u m n u s , h a d o p e n e d his address w i t h an anecdote a b o u t his undergrad­ uate days: " W h e n I w a s a n u n d e r g r a d u a t e . . . the w o m e n w e n t to Vassar. At Vassar they h a d n u d e p h o t o g r a p h s taken of the w o m e n in gym class to check their p o s t u r e . O n e year the p h o t o s were stolen, a n d t u r n e d u p for sale in N e w Haven's red light district. . . . T h e p h o t o s found n o buy­ ers." According to Ms. Wolf, the m o m e n t was devastating. "There we were, silent in o u r black g o w n s , o u r tassels, o u r b r a n d - n e w shoes. W e d a r e d n o t b r e a k the silence. . . . That afternoon, several h u n d r e d m e n w e r e confirmed in the p o w e r of a powerful institution. But m a n y of the w o m e n felt the s h a m e of the powerless: the choking silence, the complic­ ity, the h e l p l e s s n e s s . " Never m i n d that Ms. Wolf was addressing s o m e of the m o s t privileged y o u n g w o m e n in the country. T h e remainder of her speech w a s devoted to giving t h e m suggestions for the "survival kit" they w o u l d n e e d in the hostile male w o r l d they were a b o u t to enter. 25

26

27

Is it possible that the Yale w o m e n were so stricken by Cavett's tasteless joke? Did the Scripps w o m e n really n e e d a survival kit? If these privileged y o u n g w o m e n are really so fragile, w h a t could W o l f s survival kit d o for t h e m anyway? (It s e e m s that Cavett discombobulated Wolf even m o r e t h a n she realized. In a letter to the Times, Cavett p o i n t e d out that t h o u g h Wolf h a d called h i m "the speaker" at her c o m m e n c e m e n t , h e spoke not

WOMEN

UNDER

SIEGE

29

at c o m m e n c e m e n t b u t o n Class Day, "a separate, m o r e lighthearted event." ) Wolf herself was s h o w i n g the Scripps graduating class h o w she sur­ vives, b u t t h o u g h her m e t h o d s were different, her general a p p r o a c h was old-fashioned indeed. Earlier in this century, m a n y h o u s e h o l d s still h a d smelling salts on h a n d in the event that "delicate" w o m e n reacted to displays of male vulgarity by fainting. Today, w o m e n of delicacy have a n e w way to d e m o n s t r a t e their exquisitely fragile sensibilities: by explain­ ing to a n y o n e w h o will listen h o w they have b e e n blighted a n d violated by s o m e male's offensive coarseness. If n o t h i n g of a telling n a t u r e has recently h a p p e n e d to us, we can tell a b o u t h o w w e felt o n hearing w h a t h a p p e n e d to others. W e faint, "discursively" a n d publicly, at o u r h u m i l i ­ ations at the h a n d s of m e n . 28

The Hyatt Regency in Austin, Texas, is a pleasant hotel, b u t not all of the five h u n d r e d participants of the 1992 National W o m e n ' s Studies Association Conference were h a p p y w i t h it. O n e w o m a n , a professor of w o m e n ' s studies from a w e l l - k n o w n s o u t h e r n college, c o m p l a i n e d to m e about the w e d d i n g s being held there t h r o u g h o u t the w e e k e n d . " W h y have they p u t us in a setting w h e r e that sort of thing is going on?" The conference participants represented a cross section of the N e w Feminist leadership in all areas of the w o m e n ' s m o v e m e n t . S o m e h e a d u r b a n w o m e n ' s centers. O t h e r s w o r k in the offices of i m p o r t a n t politi­ cians. Many of the w o m e n w h o a t t e n d e d the conference are in the acad­ emy in one capacity or another, either as teachers or as administrators. Being aggrieved was a conference motif. T h e keynote speaker, A n n e t t e Kolodny, a feminist literary scholar a n d former d e a n of the h u m a n i t i e s faculty at the University of Arizona, o p e n e d the proceedings w i t h a brief history of the "narratives of p a i n " within the NWSA. She r e p o r t e d that ten years ago, the organization "almost came apart over outcries by o u r lesbian sisters that w e h a d failed adequately to listen to their m a n y voices." Five years ago, sisters in the Jewish caucus h a d w e p t at their o w n "sense of invisibility." Three years later the Disability caucus threatened to quit, a n d the following year the w o m e n of color w a l k e d out. A p e r n i ­ cious bigotry, Kolodny confessed, persisted in the NWSA. " O u r litanies of outrage . . . overcame o u r fragile consensus of shared c o m m i t m e n t a n d the center w o u l d n o longer h o l d . " At past conferences, oppressed w o m e n h a d accused other w o m e n of oppressing them. Participants m e t in g r o u p s defined by their grievances and healing needs: Jewish w o m e n , Jewish lesbians, Asian-American 29

30

W H O

STOLE

FEMINISM?

w o m e n , African-American w o m e n , old w o m e n , disabled w o m e n , fat w o m e n , w o m e n w h o s e sexuality is in transition. N o n e of the groups p r o v e d stable. T h e fat g r o u p polarized into gay a n d straight factions, a n d the Jewish w o m e n discovered they were deeply divided: s o m e accepted being Jewish; others w e r e seeking to recover from i t . This year, concern e x t e n d e d to "marginalized" allergy g r o u p s . Participants were sent advance notice n o t to bring perfumes, dry-cleaned clothing, hairspray, or other irritants to the conference o u t of concern for allergic sisters. Hyperconcern is n o w the n o r m : at the first National Lesbian Convention in Atlanta, flash cameras w e r e o u t l a w e d — o n g r o u n d s that they might bring on epi­ leptic fits. 30

Eleanor Smeal, the former president of N O W , was scheduled to be the first speaker o n the N W S A " e m p o w e r m e n t panel," b u t her plane h a d been delayed in M e m p h i s . To pass the time, we were introduced to an array of panelists w h o w e r e t o u t e d as being experienced in conflict reso­ lution. O n e w o m a n w a s i n t r o d u c e d as a m e m b e r of the M o h a w k nation w h o "facilitates antibias training." Another, an erstwhile dancer, was de­ scribed as a black lesbian activist w h o was "doing an amazing, miraculous j o b o n c a m p u s e s b u i l d i n g coalitions." A third, w h o h a d training as a holistic health practitioner, h e a d e d w o r k s h o p s that "creatively optimize h u m a n capacity." T h e m o d e r a t o r told u s that "these w o m e n have agreed to c o m e to us as a team a n d w o r k together to h e l p us figure out h o w w e m i g h t begin to deal m u c h m o r e effectively. . . with issues of inclusion, e m p o w e r m e n t , diversity." To k e e p o u r spirits high, w e were taught the w o r d s to a r o u n d , w h i c h w e dutifully sang: W e have c o m e this far by strength, Leaning o n each other. Trusting in each other's w o r d s . W e never failed each other yet. Singing, oh, oh, oh. Can't turn a r o u n d . W e have c o m e this far by strength. After several m i n u t e s of singing a n d still n o Smeal, panelist Angela (the former dancer) took the m i k e to tell a b o u t " o u c h experiences." An " o u c h " is w h e n you experience racism, sexism, classism, h o m o p h o b i a , ableism, ageism, or lookism. O n e of Angela's biggest ouches came after her lesbian s u p p o r t g r o u p splintered into two factions, black a n d white. Tension then developed in h e r black g r o u p b e t w e e n those w h o s e lovers were black a n d those w h o s e lovers were white. "Those of us in the g r o u p w h o h a d white

WOMEN

UNDER

SIEGE

31

lovers were immediately targeted. . . . It t u r n e d into a horrible mess. . . . 1 e n d e d u p leaving that g r o u p for self-protection." A weary Eleanor Smeal finally arrived a n d was pressed into i m m e d i a t e service. She confided that she was feeling discouraged a b o u t the feminist movement. " W e need totally n e w concepts. . . . In m a n y ways it's n o t working. . . . It is so depressing. W e are leaving . . . the next generation [in a] mess." Smeal's liveliest m o m e n t came w h e n she attacked "liberal males on the c a m p u s , " saying, "they have k e p t us apart. They have mar­ ginalized o u r programs. W e need fighting m a d n e s s . " Despite the call to arms, Smeal's talk was a d o w n e r , a n d the m o d e r a t o r acted quickly to raise o u r spirits: " W h a t w e w a n t to d o n o w is to dwell for a m i n u t e on success. . . . T h i n k a b o u t the fact that w e have b e e n so successful in transforming the curriculum." It was s o o n time for a n o t h e r song. W e are sisters in a circle. W e are sisters in a struggle. Sisters o n e a n d all. W e are colors of the rainbow, Sisters o n e a n d all. As it h a p p e n e d , I did have a real sister (in the unexciting biological sense) with m e at the conference. Louise a n d I were frankly relieved to have the singing interrupted by a coffee break. C r e a m was available, b u t p e r h a p s not for long. T h e ecofeminist caucus h a d b e e n p u s h i n g to elimi­ nate all meat, fish, eggs, a n d dairy p r o d u c t s at NWSA events. As the b r e a k ended, Phyllis, the panelist from the M o h a w k nation, came a r o u n d w i t h two little p u p p e t s , a dog a n d a teddy bear, to inform us, "Teddy a n d his friend say it's time to go back inside." Louise, w h o is a psychologist, w a s beginning to find the conference professionally intriguing. Phyllis, w h o told us that in addition to her M o h a w k ancestry she is French a n d Irish with traces of Algonquin, asked us to "take a m o m e n t to give ourselves a big hug. Let m e r e m i n d us that the p e r s o n we're hugging is the m o s t i m p o r t a n t p e r s o n w e have in o u r life." She c o n t i n u e d : Let's d o it again! Each a n d every o n e of you is m y relative . . . w e are interconnected. W e are i n t e r d e p e n d e n t . A n d w e have respect. Those are principles. So, w h a t w o u l d I n e e d from you in a loving relationship, the r e m i n d e r that I have gotten away from m y princi­ ples here; a n d to help m e get back to m y principles. Even if I have to say "ouch" a n d h u g m y p u p p e t s — o r whatever I have to d o .

32

W H O

STOLE

FEMINISM?

To c o n c l u d e the e m p o w e r m e n t panel session, a "feminist facilitator" led us in a "participatory experience." She told us to turn to o u r neighbor a n d tell h e r w h a t w e liked m o s t a b o u t the NWSA. After the m o r n i n g session, Louise a n d I visited the exhibition hall. There, d o z e n s of b o o t h s offered w o m e n ' s studies b o o k s a n d p a r a p h e r n a ­ lia. Witchcraft a n d goddess w o r s h i p supplies were in aisle one. Adjoining aisles featured h a n d m a d e jewelry, leather crafts, p o n c h o s , a n d other peas­ a n t apparel. O n e b o o t h offered videos o n do-it-yourself menstrual extrac­ tions a n d h o m e abortions for those w h o w a n t to avoid "patriarchal medicine." T h o u g h w e a k o n scholarship, the conference was strong on w o r k s h o p s a n d film screenings. W e were idly thinking of looking in on o n e of two movies: Sex and the Sandinistas a n d We're Talking Vulva. A feminist p h i l o s o p h e r , Paula Rothenberg, spotted m e a n d a p ­ p r o a c h e d . She k n e w I w a s a skeptic. "I a m very uncomfortable having you here. I saw you taking notes. W e are in the m i d d l e of w o r k i n g t h r o u g h o u r p r o b l e m s . I feel as if you have come into the m i d d l e of m y dysfunctional family, a n d you are seeing us at the worst possible m o ­ ment." But Professor Rothenberg's "dysfunctional family" has h a d m a n y such m o m e n t s . O u c h i n g s a n d mass therapy are m o r e the n o r m than the excep­ tion. T h e year before, at a meeting of w o m e n ' s studies p r o g r a m directors, everyone j o i n e d h a n d s to form a "healing circle." They also a s s u m e d the p o s t u r e of trees experiencing rootedness a n d tranquility. Victim testimon­ ials a n d healing rituals c r o w d o u t the reading of academic papers at N W S A conferences. I told Ms. Rothenberg that this was s u p p o s e d to b e an o p e n conference a n d that I h a d every right to attend. But I did feel a bit sorry for her. As a p h i l o s o p h e r she was trained to think analytically. N o w she finds herself in a "dysfunctional family" w h o s e faddish therapies even she m u s t find fatuous. Still, she has her consolations. She is director of the " N e w Jersey Project: Integrating the Scholarship on Gender," a state-funded educational reform m o v e m e n t to m a k e the N e w Jersey cur­ riculum m o r e " w o m e n - c e n t e r e d . " Later that day, she w o u l d be boasting to fellow w o r k s h o p p e r s a b o u t h o w sympathetic the N e w Jersey chancellor of education, E d w a r d Goldberg, was to her goals. Ms. Rothenberg a n d the other Austin conferees r u n the largest g r o w t h area in the academy. T h o u g h their conferences may b e untidy, they are politically astute o n their campuses. They have strong influence in key areas, in English d e p a r t m e n t s (especially freshman writing courses), F r e n c h a n d Spanish d e p a r t m e n t s , history d e p a r t m e n t s , law schools, a n d divinity schools. T h e y are disproportionately represented in dean of stu­ d e n t s ' offices, in d o r m i t o r y administration, in harassment offices, in of-

WOMEN

UNDER

33

SIEGE

fices of multicultural affairs, a n d in various counseling centers. T h e y are quietly engaged in h u n d r e d s of well-funded projects to transform a cur­ riculum that they regard as unacceptably " a n d r o c e n t r i c . " These con­ sciousness-raisers are driving o u t the scholars o n m a n y c a m p u s e s . Their moral authority comes from a w i d e s p r e a d belief that they r e p r e s e n t " w o m e n . " In fact, their gynocentric version of feminism falls far s h o r t of being representative. The conference received a w a r m letter from G o v e r n o r A n n Richards welcoming us to the great state of Texas. T h e governor called t h e assem­ bled feminists "the v a n g u a r d of the latest incarnation of the w o m e n ' s m o v e m e n t " a n d praised t h e m for their crucial leadership role. T h e N W S A audience b r o k e into t h u n d e r o u s applause as the letter was read aloud. It is, however, unlikely that Governor Richards was aware of the witchcraft booths, the m e n s t r u a l extraction videos, t h e t e d d y bear p u p p e t s , or t h e paranoid exposés of "phallocentric d i s c o u r s e " — l e t alone the implacable hostility to all exact t h i n k i n g as "male." Many foundations a n d g o v e r n m e n t agencies are involved in m a k i n g it financially possible for a lot of resentful a n d angry w o m e n to s p r e a d their divisive p h i l o s o p h y a n d influence. If I h a d m y way, those w h o m a k e the decisions to s u p p o r t t h e m w i t h generous grants w o u l d b e r e q u i r e d to view the tapes of the meetings they fund, a n d t h e n asked to h u g t h e m ­ selves until they " o u c h . "

To u n d e r s t a n d h o w the w o m e n ' s m o v e m e n t has c h a n g e d , w e m u s t look back to its beginnings. O n J u l y 14, 1 8 4 8 , the following notice appeared in the Seneca County Courier: "A c o n v e n t i o n to discuss the social, civil, a n d religious condition a n d rights of w o m e n will be held in the Wesleyan Chapel, at Seneca Falls, N.Y., o n W e d n e s d a y a n d T h u r s d a y , the 19th a n d 2 0 t h of July current; c o m m e n c i n g at 10 o'clock A . M . " T h e unsigned a n n o u n c e m e n t h a d b e e n drafted b y four w o m e n m e e t i n g in the h o m e of Richard H u n t , a wealthy reformer w h o h a d offered to h e l p t h e m organize the convention. T w o of the w o m e n , Lucretia Mott a n d Elizabeth Cady Stanton, w e r e to b e c o m e famous. T h e tea table o n w h i c h they w r o t e the a n n o u n c e m e n t is n o w o n exhibit at the Smithsonian as a relic of t h e m o m e n t w h e n American w o m e n began the political struggle to w i n s u c h elementary rights as the right to divorce w i t h o u t losing p r o p e r t y a n d children a n d the right to be educated, culminating in the right to vote a n d the attainment of full legal equality. 3 1

The press immediately called t h e m "sour old m a i d s , " "childless w o m e n , " a n d "divorced wives" a n d implied that they w o u l d b e ineffec-

34

W H O

STOLE

FEMINISM?

tual. These criticisms w o u l d always be m a d e of feminists. In fact, the organizers of the Seneca Falls convention were exceptionally well-favored, well-adjusted, morally a d v a n c e d w o m e n — a n d they were m a k i n g social a n d political history. As for being old maids, that too was inaccurate. Stanton, the m o v e m e n t ' s principal organizer a n d scribe, w o u l d have eight children. N o r w a s there a n y t h i n g s o u r a b o u t them. Referring to the w o m e n w h o participated in the Seneca Falls convention, Elizabeth Cady Stanton a n d Susan B. A n t h o n y later w r o t e that "they h a d not in their o w n experience e n d u r e d the coarser forms of tyranny resulting from unjust laws, or association w i t h i m m o r a l a n d u n s c r u p u l o u s m e n , b u t they h a d souls large e n o u g h to feel the w r o n g s of others w i t h o u t being scarified in their o w n flesh." T h e small notice b r o u g h t m o r e than three h u n d r e d w o m e n to Seneca Falls. T h e organizers were n o t quite certain h o w to go about p u t t i n g together a convention, so they "resigned themselves to a faithful perusal of various masculine p r o d u c t i o n s . " They reviewed the p r o c e d u r e s of t e m p e r a n c e a n d abolitionist conventions to see h o w they h a d b e e n m a n ­ aged, a n d w i t h the help of several sympathetic a n d experienced m e n , they w e n t a h e a d w i t h their history-making program. T h e convention voted to a d o p t a "Declaration of Sentiments" written by Elizabeth Cady Stanton, w h o a d a p t e d the w o r d s of Jefferson's "Decla­ ration of I n d e p e n d e n c e " b u t specified that the liberties d e m a n d e d were for w o m e n as well as m e n . It o p e n e d thus: 32

33

W h e n , in the course of h u m a n events, it b e c o m e s necessary for one p o r t i o n of the family of m a n to a s s u m e a m o n g the people of the earth a position different from that w h i c h they have hitherto occu­ pied, b u t o n e to w h i c h the laws of n a t u r e a n d of nature's God entitle t h e m , a d e c e n t respect to the o p i n i o n s of m a n k i n d requires that they s h o u l d declare the causes that impel t h e m to s u c h a c o u r s e . 34

A n d she w e n t o n to speak of the t r u t h w e all h o l d to be self-evident, that "all m e n a n d w o m e n are created equal." T h e organizers p r e s e n t e d a list of grievances, detailing injuries that w o m e n suffer at the h a n d s of m e n . A m o n g them: He has never p e r m i t t e d her to exercise her inalienable right to the elective franchise. . . . He has compelled her to s u b m i t to laws, in the formation of w h i c h she h a d n o voice . . . thereby leaving her w i t h o u t representation in the halls of legislation. . . . He has m a d e her, if married, in the eye of the law, civilly dead. . . . In the cove-

WOMEN

UNDER

SIEGE

35

n a n t of marriage, she is compelled to p r o m i s e obedience to h e r h u s b a n d , h e becoming, to all intents a n d p u r p o s e s , her m a s t e r — the law giving h i m p o w e r to deprive her of her liberty, a n d to administer c h a s t i s e m e n t . 35

Seneca Falls focused o n specific injustices of the k i n d that social policy could repair by m a k i n g the laws equitable. In t h i n k i n g a b o u t that first w o m e n ' s conference, it is helpful to r e m e m b e r the state of the average American w o m a n in the m i d - n i n e t e e n t h century. Consider the story of Hester Vaughan. In 1869, at the age of twenty, she h a d b e e n deserted b y her h u s b a n d . She found w o r k in a wealthy Philadelphia h o m e w h e r e the m a n of the h o u s e seduced her and, w h e n she b e c a m e p r e g n a n t , fired her. In a state of terrible indigence, she gave birth alone in an u n h e a t e d r e n t e d room, collapsing m i n u t e s afterward. By the time she was discovered, the baby h a d died. She was charged w i t h m u r d e r . N o lawyer represented h e r at her trial, a n d she was n o t p e r m i t t e d to testify. An all-male j u r y found her guilty, a n d the j u d g e sentenced her to death. Elizabeth Cady Stanton a n d Susan B. A n t h o n y learned of h e r plight and organized a campaign to help her. O n e protest m e e t i n g d r e w nearly a t h o u s a n d w o m e n . Here is h o w the historian Elisabeth Griffith describes it: "They d e m a n d e d a p a r d o n for Vaughan, an e n d to the d o u b l e s t a n d a r d of morality, the right of w o m e n to serve as j u r o r s , a n d the admission of w o m e n to law schools. . . . According to Stanton, Vaughan's trial b y a j u r y of m e n . . . illustrated the indignity a n d injustice of w o m e n ' s legal status." Vaughan was p a r d o n e d . More crucially, her c h a m p i o n s a n d their s u c ­ cessors w e n t on to win for American w o m e n in general full equality before the law, including the right to vote, the right to hold p r o p e r t y even in marriage, the right to divorce, a n d the right to equal education. The aims of the Seneca Falls activists were clearly stated, finite, a n d practicable. They w o u l d eventually b e realized because they w e r e g r o u n d e d in principles—recognized constitutional p r i n c i p l e s — t h a t w e r e squarely in the tradition of equity, fairness, a n d individual liberty. Stan­ ton's reliance on the Declaration of I n d e p e n d e n c e was n o t a ploy; it w a s a direct expression of her o w n sincere creed, a n d it was the creed of the assembled m e n a n d w o m e n . Indeed, it is w o r t h r e m e m b e r i n g that Seneca Falls was organized by b o t h m e n a n d w o m e n a n d that m e n actively participated in it a n d were w e l c o m e d . Misandrism (hostility to m e n , the counterpart to misogyny) was n o t a notable feature of the w o m e n ' s m o v e ­ m e n t until o u r o w n times. A 1992 meeting of the American Association of University W o m e n 36

37

36

W H O

STOLE

FEMINISM?

held at Mills College in O a k l a n d , California, shows h o w far m o d e r n feminism has c o m e — o r g o n e . Mills h a d been m u c h in the news two years before, w h e n its b o a r d a n n o u n c e d its decision to go the way of colleges like Vassar a n d Bennington in admitting male students. Televised film footage s h o w e d sobbing, hysterical y o u n g w o m e n protesting. So distraught w e r e they at the p r o s p e c t of allowing m e n into Mills that the trustees revoked the decision. W h e n the reversal was a n n o u n c e d , the cameras rolled again, this time s h o w i n g s t u d e n t s sobbing with joy a n d relief. Mills o n the W e s t Coast, like Smith on the East Coast, remains exclusively female. As at m o s t g e n d e r feminist gatherings, the Mills College meeting h a d almost n o m e n . O n e m a n , however, did figure p r o m i n e n t l y in a panel discussion called "The Perils a n d Pleasures of Feminist Teaching." Ra­ p h a e l Atlas, professor of m u s i c at Smith College, h a d c o m e to talk a b o u t w h a t it is like to b e a male feminist at a w o m e n ' s college. His fellow panelists w e r e Candice Taylor Hogan, assistant professor of history at W h e a t o n College in Massachusetts, a n d Faye Crosby, a psychology p r o ­ fessor, also from Smith. Professor Hogan spoke first, reading a p a p e r in w h i c h she described h e r t r a u m a w h e n W h e a t o n College w e n t coed. "I was aghast, s a d d e n e d , appalled, a n d angered. . . . T h e transition was bru­ tal, painful, a n d demoralizing." Before it could b e m a d e clear w h a t her r e m a r k s h a d to d o w i t h the conference's t h e m e , "Balancing the Educa­ tional Equation," Raphael Atlas spoke. Raphael (as all the participants called h i m ) was earnest a n d nonthreatening. He, too, read his p a p e r because, h e explained, its contents were too emotional for a m o r e informal delivery. He told us that being a male feminist at Smith College filled his life with "great anxiety." T h e course h e gave last s p r i n g o n w o m e n c o m p o s e r s m a d e h i m feel like "an imposter." H e asked, "Is it h o n e s t to identify m y project as feminist? . . . Am I j u s t o n e of those social a n d cultural forces trying to police w o m e n ' s voices?" As w e p o n d e r e d these questions, Raphael told us a b o u t the m a n y colleagues a n d s t u d e n t s w h o believe that the few males at Smith "poi­ s o n e d " the a t m o s p h e r e . H e said in anguished tones, " W h a t d o these w o m e n ' s voices say to me? I a m alien. I d o n o t belong. 1 believe them." I felt a bit less sorry for Raphael w h e n h e finished his confession by telling us that h e finds it all "exciting." It was Professor Crosby's turn. "In feminist pedagogy," she explained, "you d o n o t j u s t theorize, b u t take action." For h o m e w o r k , she h a d instructed h e r i n t r o d u c t o r y psychology s t u d e n t s at Smith to b u y three c o n d o m s , m a k i n g eye contact with the vendor. She t h o u g h t the assign38

WOMEN

UNDER

SIEGE

37

m e n t h a d been successful until several s t u d e n t s p o i n t e d o u t that it w a s "heterosexist." It marginalized lesbians. They told h e r a b o u t dental d a m s — c o n d o m l i k e devices useful for safe lesbian oral sex. Professor Crosby told us that d u r i n g Parents' W e e k e n d , she h a d invited her students a n d their p a r e n t s to a small interactive lecture. C o n d o m s were again a theme. T h e class played a " c o n d o m relay race," in w h i c h parents a n d s t u d e n t s raced each other to see w h i c h g r o u p of five c o u l d p u t five c o n d o m s o n an u n p e e l e d b a n a n a w i t h o u t breaking the b a n a n a . Said Professor Crosby, referring to the c o n d o m , "They h a d to o w n it a n d enjoy it." O n c e again Ms. Crosby t h o u g h t all h a d g o n e well. She h a d b e e n careful to m a k e m e n t i o n of the dental d a m s . But angry s t u d e n t s p o i n t e d o u t to her that t h o u g h she h a d shown the p a r e n t s the dental d a m s , s h e h a d n ' t used t h e m in the relay races. They'd complained, she said, that "it w a s as if you said, oh, well, here are the dental d a m s — b o r i n g , insignificant lesbian sex . . . n o w let's get to the really great a n d fun heterosexual sex." Professor Crosby e n d e d by telling u s a b o u t her guilt over having b e e n "exclusionary." "I felt terrible!" Like Raphael, she w a s clearly exhilarated by h o w terrible she felt. The w o r k s h o p h a d been a bit u n c o n v e n t i o n a l , b u t until that p o i n t all h a d been decorous. D e c o r u m was irreparably shattered b y "Rita" from the City College of San Francisco, w h o s p o k e loudly a n d angrily from the rear of the room. Addressing Raphael, s h e said, "First of all, w h y did you read your paper? As a p o e t a n d s o m e o n e w h o cares a b o u t language, I found it extremely dull to have to sit t h o u g h all of that." But t h e n Rita went on to say she was so upset that s h e too preferred to read h e r statement: "Raphael said h e was a male feminist: that is a n o x y m o r o n . My deep belief is that m e n cannot b e feminists. T h e y have n o place in w o m e n - c e n t e r e d spheres. Raphael is a w o m b envier a n d a feminist w a n ­ n a b e — a p o s e u r in o u r midst. Let h i m take his voice into a n all-male forum." Terry, a day care provider from O a k l a n d , w a s very m o v e d b y Rita's declaration. "I agree with Rita. I did n o t c o m e to a w o r k s h o p to hear that," she said, referring to the male voice. Ms. Crosby, w h o was also the m o d e r a t o r , looked a bit n e r v o u s . It seemed clear that she s h o u l d c o m e to the defense of h e r beleaguered Smith colleague. But she w a s patently intrigued b y w h a t she described as an "affectively charged exchange." "Rita, y o u r attack o n Raphael w a s extremely r u d e , " she said. "You are breaking, n o r m s b y attacking o u r speaker like that. A n d that is w r o n g . But," she c o n t i n u e d , "as a feminist, I believe in breaking n o r m s . "

38

W H O

STOLE

FEMINISM?

T h e n Raphael s p o k e u p , although h e looked at the floor as h e spoke. "It is a dilemma. Little parts of m e agree with Rita," h e said. "Men d o n o t belong at Smith. So w h y a m I there? In addition to nitty-gritty issues of j o b m a r k e t a n d m y m o d e s t research projects—I still ask: d o I belong there? It s a d d e n s m e , demoralizes m e , a n d depresses m e . Yet I feel anger toward you, Rita. I feel you have typed m e . I w o n d e r if it is possible for u s to have a dialogue? O n the flight h o m e I will b e thinking a b o u t w h a t I m i g h t have said." Ms. Crosby was n o w in h e r element: " O n e aspect of the patriarchy is that w e have to k e e p to schedules. But before breaking u p , let us go a r o u n d the r o o m a n d see if a n y o n e w a n t s to share their feelings." She m o v e d about, Phil D o n a h u e - s t y l e , soliciting c o m m e n t s . Her first taker was a w o m a n w h o said, "My heart is p o u n d i n g with Rita a n d Terry. . . . I was u p s e t to see a m a n o n the panel. I t h o u g h t there w o u l d be only w o m e n ; I w a s n o t expecting this sort of—difference." My sister Louise s p o k e u p . "I like differences between people. I try to heighten differences b e t w e e n people. I like individuals." Ms. Crosby m o v e d along hastily to a n o t h e r speaker. "My n a m e is Anthea; I a m the d a u g h t e r of Beatrice, w h o is the d a u g h t e r of her m o t h e r , w h o was a vegan a n d a suffragette. Let's clap for everybody." Most people did clap. Then Raphael called out, "Rita a n d I inhabit different spheres. I a m a white male, age 3 0 - 3 4 . T h a t is difficult for m e . " A gray-haired w o m a n in the back, an AAUW m e m b e r a n d an oldschool feminist, v e n t u r e d meekly: "I a m in favor of educating o u r y o u n g people, girls a n d boys, to accept o n e a n o t h e r as equals." But before a n y o n e could p o u n c e o n that particular heresy, it was time to go. T h e w o r k s h o p p e r s filed o u t to attend the next event. Raphael disap­ p e a r e d completely. At the n e x t w o r k s h o p all the panelists were w o m e n , w h i c h Rita's faction w o u l d u n d o u b t e d l y find m o r e comfortable. As m y sister a n d I w e r e leaving the seminar r o o m , w e passed a jubilant Professor Crosby speaking to a Smith College s t u d e n t a n d her visiting parents. The p a r e n t s h a d a t t e n d e d the w o r k s h o p a n d were looking a little b e m u s e d . "I consider that session a great success," said Crosby, "because it was the m o s t like a Smith College class t h a n a n y of the other events so far!" G e n d e r feminists d o n o t relish criticism, a n d there are n o forums w h e r e old a n d n e w feminists m e e t for a free exchange of competing ideas. I did learn of o n e s u c h e n c o u n t e r that occurred spontaneously in the spring of 1 9 9 1 at a conference called "Glasnost in T w o Cultures: Soviet Russian/ N o r t h American W o m e n ' s Writing," s p o n s o r e d by feminist scholars at the N e w York Institute for the Humanities at N e w York University. The

WOMEN

UNDER

SIEGE

39

episode was r e c o u n t e d by the Russian-American writer David Gurevich, w h o attended the conference as a translator. A small g r o u p of talented a n d o u t s p o k e n Russian w o m e n poets a n d novelists h a d b e e n invited to attend the conference, w h i c h began, inauspiciously, with the American a u t h o r Grace Paley taking the visitors on a tour of the Lower East Side for a close-up look at America's slums, c o m ­ plete with p a n h a n d l e r s a n d j u n k i e s . T h e visitors, w h o h a d since child­ h o o d seen Soviet p r o p a g a n d a films highlighting American misery, w e r e not duly appreciative. At the meeting itself, the ideological gulf b e t w e e n the Russian a n d American feminists b e c a m e m o r e obvious. T h e literary critic Natalya Adzhikhina c h a m p i o n e d the idea of t h r o w i n g o u t the canon, an idea that was well received all a r o u n d until it slowly d a w n e d o n the g e n d e r femi­ nists that Ms. A d z h i k h i n a was referring to the official C o m m u n i s t Party canon. She a n d most of the other Russian writers w a n t e d to return to the canon of m a s t e r w o r k s that American feminists consider "masculinist." W h e n the other Russian writers s p o k e , they too uttered blasphemies, such as "There is only good a n d b a d l i t e r a t u r e — n o t male a n d female." It became shockingly clear that the Russians w e r e seeking to liberate art from politics, including sexual politics. Professor Linda Kauffman of the University of Maryland w a s alarmed a n d offended: "I d o n ' t w a n t to s o u n d like I a m from California—which actually I a m — b u t this is, like, heavyduty denial." Ms. Kauffman w e n t o n to deliver a n i m p r o m p t u s e r m o n o n the evils of the FBI, Jesse Helms, a n d censorship at the NEA. She p o i n t e d out that the "MacNeil/Lehrer N e w s H o u r " was funded by A T & T a n d spoke of a w o m e n ' s g u l a g . As she c o n t i n u e d in this familiar vein, several of the Russian w o m e n slowly m a d e their way to the ladies' r o o m , the only place w h e r e they w e r e free to s m o k e . 39

40

W h e n it was again the Russian w o m e n ' s t u r n to speak, the blasphemies p o u r e d forth once m o r e . Olesya Nikolayeva, the Moscow poet, told the American feminists h o w socialism h a d d e n i e d w o m e n their femininity, h o w it b r o k e the tradition of m o r a l a n d spiritual w o m e n in Russian literature, a n d h o w it b r o k e the Christian tradition w i t h o u t w h i c h Russian literature after P u s h k i n was u n t h i n k a b l e . She insisted that the attack o n religion h a d b e e n fatal to literature, since religion h a d always b e e n s u c h a sustaining force for writers. She c o n c l u d e d by citing disturbing statistics about juvenile crime in M o s c o w a n d encouraging all the w o m e n in the audience to p a y m o r e attention to their traditional role as "keepers of the hearth." Catharine Stimpson, a director at the MacArthur F o u n d a t i o n a n d

40

W H O

STOLE

FEMINISM?

o n e of the founding m o t h e r s of the N e w Feminism, could n o longer contain herself. She w a r n e d of a " n e w totalitarianism" a n d said that work­ ing m o t h e r s could n o t b e b l a m e d for runaways a n d delinquency: the state s h o u l d find a solution. D o m n a Stanton, a Michigan w o m e n ' s studies professor w h o h a d organized the conference, w a r n e d of the perils of "white male morality." A y o u n g novelist, Valerya Narbikova, took the m i c r o p h o n e a n d s p o k e a b o u t her writers' g r o u p , the N e w Amazons. T h e American feminists were beginning to h o p e they could finally m a k e contact w h e n Ms. Narbikova a n n o u n c e d , "It is j u s t a n a m e . W e have n o t h i n g to d o with feminism." " N o t h i n g at all?" the disbelieving critic Hortense Spiller asked. Gurevich describes the scene: " W i n e glass in h a n d , Valerya was p u r e artiste. ' N o p e . ' . . . Ladylike pretenses were d r o p p e d . The w o m e n were tearing the m i k e from each other's h a n d . . . . Stanton was soon left a l o n e — h e r faction, including Stimpson, h a d fled q u i e t l y — a n d she was actually wringing h e r h a n d s . " Tatyana Tolstaya, a writer w h o s e short stories h a d b e e n recently acclaimed by American critics, t h u n d e r e d : "You . . . keep c o m i n g to Russia a n d w e k e e p telling you these things! W h y d o you never listen to us? W h y d o y o u t h i n k you k n o w m o r e a b o u t o u r life than w e do?" U n d o u b t e d l y , the g e n d e r feminists left the conference pitying the be­ nighted Russian writers for being so retrograde in their attitudes to gen­ der. To m e , those Russian w o m e n are the h o p e of feminism—a n e w avant-garde. I wish they w o u l d all emigrate to the United States. They k n o w firsthand a b o u t the terrible consequences of g r o u p loyalty based on g r o u p t h i n k ; they are utterly i m m u n e to ideological blandishments. Since reading Gurevich's a c c o u n t of the N e w York University encoun­ ter, I have b e e n a t t e n d i n g feminist meetings in a m o r e hopeful frame of m i n d . W h e n s o m e g e n d e r feminist is in the m i d d l e of yet a n o t h e r m i n d n u m b i n g exposé of the evils of male culture, I find myself looking a b o u t for s o m e i n n o c e n t or intrepid soul w h o looks as if she might speak u p a n d say w h a t I, as a n observer, m u s t often refrain from saying. It hasn't h a p p e n e d yet, b u t n o w I k n o w it is n o t o u t of the question.

Chapter 2

Indignation, Resentment, and Collective Guilt

E v e r y day the p u b l i c is witness to feminist outrage at h o w badly w o m e n are treated: in the workplace, in the courts, o n dates, in marriages, in the s c h o o l s — b y m e n mostly, b u t s o m e t i m e s by other w o m e n . M u c h of w h a t is reported is true, a n d s o m e of it is very disturbing. Of course, the a b u s e or slighting of w o m e n m u s t b e m a d e k n o w n a n d should arouse indignation. Plato himself recognized the role of righteous indignation as a m a i n s p r i n g of m o r a l action. In his m e t a p h o r , indignation is the good steed helping the charioteer to stay o n the p a t h of virtue b y controlling the vicious, w a y w a r d steed straining to go its o w n b r u t i s h way. It is the "spirited element" in the soul that supplies the wise p e r s o n with the emotional energy, the horsepower, to c u r b the appetites so that h e or she m a y act virtuously. But m o s t of those w h o publicly b e m o a n the plight of w o m e n in Amer­ ica are m o v e d by m o r e d u b i o u s passions a n d interests. Theirs is a femi­ nism of r e s e n t m e n t that rationalizes a n d fosters a wholesale r a n c o r in w o m e n that has little to d o with m o r a l indignation. Resentment m a y

42

W H O

STOLE

FEMINISM?

begin in a n d include indignation, b u t it is by far the m o r e abiding pas­ sion. Resentment is " h a r b o r e d " or "nurtured"; it "takes root" in a subject (the victim) a n d r e m a i n s directed at a n o t h e r (the culprit). It can b e vicar­ i o u s — y o u n e e d n o t have h a r m e d m e personally, b u t if I identify with s o m e o n e you have h a r m e d , I m a y resent you. Such resentment is very c o m m o n a n d m a y easily b e as strong a n d intense as resentment occa­ sioned by direct injury. In a way it is stronger, for by enlarging the class of victims to include others, it magnifies the villainy as well. Having d e m a r c a t e d a victimized " u s " with w h o m I n o w feel solidarity, I can p o i n t to o n e victim a n d say, "In w r o n g i n g her, h e has betrayed his c o n t e m p t for u s all," or "Anyone w h o h a r m s a w o m a n h a r m s us all," or simply " W h a t h e did to her, h e did to all of u s . " The next step is to regard the individual w h o w r o n g e d " u s " as himself representative of a g r o u p , giving o u r a n i m u s a larger target. This I m a y d o quite "reasonably" by a d o p t i n g a position from w h i c h people like the perpetrator (male, rich, etc.) are regarded as "the k i n d of p e o p l e " w h o exploit people like " u s . " My social reality has n o w b e e n dichotomized into two g r o u p s politically at o d d s , o n e of w h o m d o m i n a t e s a n d exploits the other. Susan Faludi, a u t h o r of Backlash a n d o n e of the m o r e p o p u l a r resenters of o u r time, r e m i n d s us of the feminist truism that feminist anger comes w h e n w o m e n c o n s t r u e their individual experiences in a political frame­ w o r k : " W h e n you're n o t able to see y o u r experience as political, you're n o t able to b e angry a b o u t i t . " Sandra Bartky, w h o is an expert on s o m e t h i n g she calls the " p h e n o m e n o l o g y of feminist consciousness," p u t s it succinctly: "Feminist consciousness is consciousness of victimization . . . to c o m e to see oneself as a victim" (her e m p h a s i s ) . O n c e I get into the habit of regarding w o m e n as a subjugated gender, I'm p r i m e d to b e alarmed, angry, a n d resentful of m e n as oppressors of w o m e n . I a m also p r e p a r e d to believe the worst a b o u t t h e m a n d the h a r m they cause to w o m e n . I m a y even b e ready to fabricate atrocities. Eleanor Smeal s p o k e in Austin of the n e e d to get w o m e n fighting m a d . Neither she n o r a n y of the other feminist leaders a n d thinkers w h o p r o m o t e the sexual politics of r e s e n t m e n t a n d anger seem to be aware of h o w inju­ riously divisive their version of feminism i s — o r if they are, they seem n o t to care. Consider h o w Patricia Ireland, the president of N O W , speaks of her seven years as a flight a t t e n d a n t for Pan Am: "I t h o u g h t of myself as a professional. But w h a t I really did was go d o w n the aisle a n d take people's garbage a n d t h a n k t h e m for it. That's w h a t w o m e n have b e e n doing. We've b e e n taking their garbage a n d t h a n k i n g t h e m for it. We've got to s t o p . " Ms. Ireland is telling u s h o w easy it is (in a society that routinely 1

2

3

INDIGNATION,

RESENTMENT.

43

humiliates w o m e n ) for w o m e n to deceive themselves into t h i n k i n g they are doing s o m e t h i n g dignified w h e n they are "really" d o i n g s o m e t h i n g demeaning. She speaks of "their garbage," m e a n i n g " m e n ' s , " t h o u g h p r o b ­ ably half the passengers were w o m e n . She asks us to n o t e the s h a m e of taking their garbage a n d having to t h a n k " t h e m " for it. W o u l d s h e b e in favor of having the airlines p h a s e out w o m e n flight a t t e n d a n t s , replacing t h e m with men? But Ireland k n o w s w h a t she is doing. By so c o n s t r u i n g male/female relations, she is d o i n g w h a t any political leader d o e s in time of war: get potential allies angry a n d unified b e h i n d the effort to defeat the enemy. Resentment is n o t a w h o l e s o m e passion. Unlike indignation, it is n o t an ethical passion. But because it often originates in m o r a l outrage at real injustice (from wife battering to j o b discrimination), r e s e n t m e n t can b e m a d e to s o u n d like a c o m m e n d a b l e passion for social justice. T h e idea that m e n are generally culpable has the status of a first principle a m o n g some establishment feminists. According to Marilyn French, "The entire system of female o p p r e s s i o n rests on ordinary m e n , w h o maintain it w i t h a fervor a n d dedication to d u t y that any secret police force m i g h t envy. W h a t other system can d e p e n d o n almost half the p o p u l a t i o n to enforce a policy daily, publicly a n d privately, with utter reliability?" It is a system that uses threat as well as force to exploit a n d humiliate w o m e n . 4

As long as s o m e m e n use physical force to subjugate females, all m e n need not. T h e k n o w l e d g e that s o m e m e n d o suffices to threaten all w o m e n . Beyond that, it is n o t necessary to beat u p a w o m a n to beat her d o w n . A m a n can simply refuse to hire w o m e n in well-paid j o b s , extract as m u c h or m o r e w o r k from w o m e n than m e n b u t p a y t h e m less, or treat w o m e n disrespectfully at w o r k or at h o m e . He can fail to s u p p o r t a child h e has engendered, d e m a n d the w o m a n h e lives with wait on h i m like a servant. H e can beat or kill the w o m a n he claims to love; h e can rape w o m e n , w h e t h e r m a t e , ac­ quaintance, or stranger; h e can rape or sexually molest his d a u g h ­ ters, nieces, stepchildren, or the children of a w o m a n h e claims to love. The vast majority of men in the world do one or more of the above [her e m p h a s i s ] . 5

In French's view, male atrocity a n d criminal a b u s e are p a n d e m i c . W e must, however, insist that the b u r d e n of proof for so b r o a d a claim b e o n her. Even if w e accept the premise that m e n a n d w o m e n are at o d d s , the factual question of guilt cannot be b e g g e d — a t least not in this country.

44

W H O

STOLE

FEMINISM?'

Moreover, w e c a n n o t h e l p noticing that French's c o n t e m p t for m e n is a c c o m p a n i e d by a strong bias in favor of w o m e n : "While m e n strut a n d fret their h o u r u p o n the stage, s h o u t in bars a n d sports arenas, t h u m p their chests or s h o w their profiles in the legislatures, a n d explode incred­ ible w e a p o n s in a n endless contest for status, an obsessive quest for symbolic ' p r o o f of their superiority, w o m e n quietly keep the w o r l d going." Resenter feminists are convinced that m e n generally take every oppor­ tunity to exploit w o m e n a n d that they often delight in humiliating t h e m physically a n d mentally. "Given the prevalence of rape a n d given the socio-cultural s u p p o r t s for sexual aggression a n d violence against w o m e n in this society, p e r h a p s w e s h o u l d b e asking m e n w h o don't rape, w h y not! In o t h e r w o r d s , w e s h o u l d b e asking w h a t factors prevent m e n from abusing w o m e n in r a p e - s u p p o r t i v e societies." That is the view of Diana Scully, a u t h o r of Understanding Sexual Violence. Recently several male s t u d e n t s at Vassar were falsely accused of date rape. After their i n n o c e n c e w a s established, the assistant dean of students, Catherine C o m i n s , said of their ordeal: "They have a lot of pain, b u t it is n o t a p a i n that I w o u l d necessarily have spared them. I think it ideally initiates a process of self-exploration. ' H o w d o I see w o m e n ? ' 'If I did n o t violate her, could I have?' 'Do I have the potential to d o to her w h a t they say I did?' These are g o o d q u e s t i o n s . " Dean C o m i n s clearly feels justified in t r u m p i n g the c o m m o n law principle " p r e s u m e d innocent until p r o v e n guilty" b y a n e w feminist principle, "guilty even if proven innocent." Indeed, she believes that the s t u d e n t s are n o t really innocent after all. H o w so? Because, being male a n d being b r o u g h t u p in the patriarchal culture, they could easily have done w h a t they were falsely accused of having d o n e , even t h o u g h they d i d n ' t actually d o it. W h e r e m e n are c o n c e r n e d , C o m i n s quite sincerely believes in collective guilt. Moreover, she feels s h e can rely o n her a u d i e n c e to b e in general agreement with h e r o n this. 6

7

8

T h e idea of collective guilt m a y s o u n d like the theological doctrine of original sin, b u t in Christianity, at least, it applies equally to all h u m a n beings. Racists a n d g e n d e r feminists are m o r e "discriminating." In the s p r i n g of 1 9 9 3 , n i n e w o m e n students, w h o were taking a course called " C o n t e m p o r a r y Issues in Feminist Art" at the University of Mary­ land, distributed posters a n d fliers all over the c a m p u s w i t h the n a m e s of d o z e n s of male s t u d e n t s u n d e r the h e a d i n g "Notice: These M e n Are Po­ tential Rapists." T h e w o m e n k n e w n o t h i n g whatever a b o u t the bearers of the n a m e s ; they h a d simply chosen t h e m at r a n d o m from the university

INDIGNATION,

45

RESENTMENT.

directory to use in their class project. T h e instructor, J o s e p h i n e W i t h e r s , w o u l d n o t c o m m e n t to the p r e s s . The N e w Feminists are a powerful source of mischief because their leaders are n o t good at seeing things as they are. Resenter feminists like Faludi, French, Heilbrun a n d MacKinnon speak of backlash, siege, a n d an undeclared w a r against w o m e n . But the condition they describe is m y t h i c — w i t h n o foundation in the facts of c o n t e m p o r a r y American life. Real-life m e n have n o w a r offices, n o situation r o o m s , n o battle p l a n s against w o m e n . There is n o radical militant w i n g of a masculinist m o v e ­ ment. To the extent o n e can speak at all of a gender war, it is the N e w Feminists themselves w h o are waging it. 9

Gender feminists are fond of telling m e n w h o d o n ' t realize the d e p t h of w o m e n ' s anger a n d r e s e n t m e n t that "they j u s t d o n ' t get it." Feminist leaders immediately rallied to the side of Lorena Bobbitt, the Virginia w o m a n accused of having severed h e r sleeping h u s b a n d ' s penis b u t w h o in turn accused h i m of having r a p e d her. T h e Virginia chapter of N O W set u p a s u p p o r t line for Ms. Bobbitt h e a d e d by Virginia's N O W coordi­ nator, Denise L e e . In Vanity Fair, Kim Masters reported on "Lorena supporters w h o have transformed the V-for-Victory sign into a s y m b o l of solidarity by m a k i n g scissorlike m o t i o n s w i t h their fingers." Kim G a n d y , executive vice p r e s i d e n t of N O W , talked of the m a n y w o m e n " w h o have gone t h r o u g h this a n d p r o b a b l y wish they h a d a chance to get their o w n revenge." T h e journalist Daniel W a t t e n b e r g rightly saw in all this the p r e s u m p ­ tion of J o h n W a y n e Bobbitt's guilt long before the case h a d g o n e to trial. "It is a s s u m e d that h e routinely beat his wife over a p e r i o d of years. It is assumed that h e r a p e d her the night she castrated h i m . " It hardly matters that Mr. Bobbitt has since been found n o t guilty by the courts. C o m ­ menting o n the castration o n " 2 0 / 2 0 , " Patricia Ireland said, "The d e p t h of anger that was p l u m b e d b y this a n d the response of s u p p o r t that c o m e s for Lorena Bobbitt comes from the d e p t h of anger, of feeling there has n o t been a d e q u a t e resources a n d recourse a n d redress of the terrible violence that w o m e n face." But, sticking to w h a t facts w e have, all w e can say is that Lorena was enraged to the p o i n t of violence. T h e personal tragedy of this u n h a p p y couple has b e e n a p p r o p r i a t e d as a symbol of righteous feminist revenge. T h e in-joke a m o n g Lorena's feminist admirers is that Lorena has since b e e n greeting J o h n b y saying, "Now d o you get it?" 10

11

12

W h e n collective guilt is assigned (to males, to G e r m a n s , to Moslems,

46

W H O

STOLE

FEMINISM?

etc.), children are usually included. Explaining w h y Minnesota has a d o p t e d strict sexual h a r a s s m e n t policies for children as y o u n g as five, Sue Sattel, the "sex equity specialist" for the Minnesota D e p a r t m e n t of Education, p o i n t s o u t that "serial killers tell interviewers they started sexually harassing at age 10, a n d got away with i t . " N a n Stein, a project director at the Wellesley College Center for Re­ search o n W o m e n w h o specializes in sexual harassment by juveniles, is angry w i t h M o n t a n a school officials a n d teachers for ignoring the "gen­ d e r e d terrorism" in their schoolyards. 13

Friday "Flip-Up Day" is a weekly occurrence at m a n y elementary schools in M o n t a n a . Every Friday, boys chase girls a r o u n d the school p l a y g r o u n d s ; those girls w h o have w o r n skirts are fair game — t h e i r skirts will b e flipped u p , n o t once, b u t as m a n y times as possible b y as m a n y boys as can get t h e m . School administrators . . . have seen n o reason to intervene or to p u n i s h the perpetrators. Their silence has allowed this g e n d e r e d terrorism on the p l a y g r o u n d to c o n t i n u e . 14

Boys w h o tease girls b y flipping u p their skirts s h o u l d b e dealt with decisively a n d p e r h a p s severely. But only w o m e n w h o view the world t h r o u g h "sex/gender" lenses w o u l d see in children's schoolyard rudeness the m a k i n g of serial killers a n d g e n d e r terrorists. S h o u l d the r u d e n e s s even b e regarded in sexual terms? T h e gender m o n i t o r s believe it s h o u l d b e a n d that girls s h o u l d be m a d e aware of its true n a t u r e . O n e of the goals of the sex equity experts is to teach little girls to b e resentful of boys' p r a n k s by pointing out that w h a t they are d o i n g is sexual h a r a s s m e n t a n d against the law. Bernice Sandler, a gender relations specialist at W a s h i n g t o n ' s Center for W o m e n Policy Studies, offers h a r a s s m e n t w o r k s h o p s to elementary school children. At o n e work­ s h o p , a little girl told a b o u t a classmate w h o h a d p u s h e d her d o w n a n d tickled her. Ms. Sandler m a d e sure to p u t the boy's act in perspective: " N o w , you have to ask, w h a t is this boy doing, throwing girls to the g r o u n d ? This h a p p e n s to b e a sexual offense in N e w York, a n d in m o s t states." T h e p r e s u m p t i o n of sexual guilt continues as children grow u p . In m o r e a n d m o r e p u b l i c schools a n d colleges, w e find a d y n a m i c g r o u p of feminist r e f o r m e r s — h a r a s s m e n t officers, w o m e n ' s studies professors, res­ ident hall staff, assorted d e a n s a n d assistant deans, a n d sex equity experts — w h o regard male sexuality w i t h alarm a n d seek ways to control it. The Rutgers University anthropologist Lionel Tiger has described the contem15

INDIGNATION,

47

RESENTMENT

porary sexual e n v i r o n m e n t w i t h its hysteria over h a r a s s m e n t a n d date rape as a reversal of the o n e described in The Scarlet Letter: "It's the male w h o n o w bears the stigma of alleged sexual v i o l a t i o n . " If they d o , n o t m a n y notice it. T h e g e n d e r feminist ideology affects w o m e n far m o r e deeply. Many are "converted" to a view of the society they inhabit as a patriarchal system of oppression. For most, this h a p p e n s in college. Laurie Martinka, a w o m e n ' s studies graduate from Vassar, talked to m e a b o u t h e r personal transformation. "You're never the s a m e again. Sometimes I even b e m o a n the fact that so m u c h has changed. I a m tired of always ripping things apart because they exclude the perspective of w o m e n . . . . You b e c o m e so aware of things. A n d it is hard. My m o t h e r cannot accept it. It is h a r d for her because I have c h a n g e d so completely." Anne Package, a s t u d e n t at the University of Pennsylvania, told m e that students talk a m o n g themselves a b o u t this keen n e w awareness: " W e call it 'being on the verge' or ' b o t t o m i n g out.' You are d o w n o n everything. Nothing is funny a n y m o r e . It hits you like a ton of bricks. You hit r o c k b o t t o m a n d ask: h o w can I live m y life?" W h e n I suggested to h e r that m a n y w o u l d c o u n t her a n d her classmates a m o n g the world's m o r e for­ tunate y o u n g w o m e n , she bristled. " W e still suffer psychological o p p r e s ­ sion. If you feel like the w h o l e w o r l d is o n t o p of you, t h e n it is." 16

I was intrigued, t h o u g h , by her expression "being o n the verge." O n the verge of what? T h o u g h the expression suggests a transitory experi­ ence, being on the verge is construed as the p e r m a n e n t c o n d i t i o n of w o m e n w h o feel they have achieved a realistic awareness of their plight in male-dominated society. Such w o m e n s o m e t i m e s organize into small b u t powerful g r o u p s within institutions they regard as masculinist bas­ tions a n d w h e r e they m a k e their presence felt in n o uncertain terms. The Boston Globe is N e w England's largest a n d m o s t prestigious n e w s ­ paper. In 1 9 9 1 , s o m e two dozen w o m e n editors, managers, a n d c o l u m ­ nists (including Ellen G o o d m a n ) formed a g r o u p called " W o m e n o n the Verge" to counter w h a t senior education editor Muriel C o h e n called the "macho n e w s r o o m . " T h e "vergies," as they have c o m e to be k n o w n , have s o m e traditional equity feminist concerns a b o u t salaries a n d p r o ­ motions; b u t they have also taken u p a r m s against s u c h things as the use of sports m e t a p h o r s in n e w s stories a n d the traditional l u n c h t i m e basket­ ball game, w h i c h symbolizes to t h e m the once-powerful a n d exclusionary old-boy n e t w o r k (though that complaint is u n f o u n d e d because w o m e n are welcome to play, a n d s o m e do). Defending the basketball games, editor Ben Bradlee, Jr., says: "All it is really is a b u n c h of p e o p l e w h o want to get exercise a n d play a game. In the current conspiracy that's abroad, it's m e a n d the other editors p e r h a p s cutting secret deals a n d 17

48

W H O

STOLE

FEMINISM?

18

giving the boys t h e best s t o r i e s . " Ms. C o h e n expressed concern to editor Jack Driscoll over the " h o r m o n e s that are r u n n i n g a r o u n d h e r e . " Vergies are also irritated b y "the strutting z o n e " — a corridor w h e r e s o m e of the managerial males like to p a c e before deciding on the day's lead stories. T h e W o m e n o n the Verge at the Globe art feared b u t not loved. Since their advent, the n e w s p a p e r has k n o w n n o internal peace. David N y h a n , a senior editor a n d syndicated columnist, has been o n the p a p e r for m o r e t h a n twenty years a n d is part of w h a t is k n o w n as its liberal "Irish mafia." H e is an old-style n e w s p a p e r m a n w h o wears his sleeves rolled u p a n d has a b o o m i n g voice a n d a p e n c h a n t for b a w d y h u m o r . It w a s j u s t a m a t t e r of time before h e got into trouble with the W o m e n o n t h e Verge. O n April 2 0 , 1 9 9 3 , h e was o n his way to play in the infamous n o o n t i m e basketball m a t c h w h e n h e spotted a fellow re­ porter, Brian McGrory, a n d invited h i m to j o i n the game. Brian was on assignment a n d h a d a b a d k n e e that day, so he declined. Nyhan persisted, b u t w h e n it w a s clear that McGrory was not going to play, Nyhan jeered h i m as " p u s s y - w h i p p e d . " 19

Betsy L e h m a n , a vergie, overheard the r e m a r k in passing a n d m a d e it clear that s h e w a s very offended. N y h a n , w h o hadn't realized anyone was listening, immediately apologized. Sensing h e was in trouble, he placed a m e m o o n his d o o r restating his remorse. H e w e n t a r o u n d the n e w s r o o m a n d again apologized to a n y w o m a n h e could find. But h e was about to b e m a d e a n e x a m p l e of, a n d n o t h i n g could stop it. Already several W o m e n o n t h e Verge h a d interpreted his statement as an insult to a w o m a n editor w h o , they a s s u m e d , h a d given Brian McGrory his assign­ m e n t . M c G r o r y denies it w a s a w o m a n . T h e Globe m a n a g e m e n t h a d j u s t s p e n t t h o u s a n d s of dollars on sensitiv­ ity w o r k s h o p s . Senior editor Matt Storm d r e w the moral: "Coming off of that experience [the w o r k s h o p s ] , I for o n e a m all the m o r e s a d d e n e d by today's e x p e r i e n c e . " Storin w a r n e d the staff that "remarks that are ra­ cially a n d sexually offensive to co-workers will n o t be tolerated here. Those w h o u t t e r s u c h r e m a r k s will b e subject to disciplinary procedures." T h e p u b l i s h e r fined N y h a n $ 1 , 2 5 0 a n d suggested he donate that s u m to a charity of Ms. L e h m a n ' s choice. T h e vergies h a d m a d e their point, b u t the m e n of the Globe (and s o m e w o m e n reporters w h o s y m p a t h i z e d with them) h a d been alerted to the climate of r e s e n t m e n t they lived in. They began to react. A price list was circulated: " b a b e " cost $ 3 5 0 , "bitch" w e n t for $ 9 0 0 , "pussy-whipped," $ 1 , 2 5 0 . S o m e o n e started a David N y h a n relief fund. (The fine was even­ tually rescinded.) Even s o m e of the vergies were uncomfortable. Ellen G o o d m a n said that s h e d i s a p p r o v e d of the fine: "You d o n o t w a n t to get 20

INDIGNATION,

RESENTMENT.

49

to the p o i n t w h e r e everybody feels every sentence is being m o n i t o r e d . " But that is j u s t the p o i n t the Globe h a d gotten t o . The Globe incident is emblematic of the "achievements" of the N e w Feminists elsewhere. They have achieved visibility a n d influence, b u t they have not succeeded in w i n n i n g the hearts of American w o m e n . Most American feminists, unwilling to b e identified as p a r t of a cause they find alien, have r e n o u n c e d the label a n d have left the field to the resenters. The harmful consequences of giving unchallenged rein to the ideologues are n o w h e r e m o r e evident than in the universities. 21

Chapter 3

Transforming the Academy

I am grateful...

to

ovular at Washington

the students of my women's

studies

University in the spring semester of

1982}

This little a c k n o w l e d g m e n t , in the preface of a b o o k by the feminist p h i l o s o p h e r Joyce Trebilcot, is o n e of the m o r e amusing examples of the feminist effort to p u r g e language of sexist bias. Trebilcot considers "sem­ inar" offensively "masculinist," so she has replaced it by "ovular," w h i c h she regards as its feminist equivalent. Linguistic reform is one charac­ teristic activity of feminist academics, a n d biological coinages are very m u c h in favor. Feminist literary critics a n d feminist theologians (who call themselves thealogians) m a y refer to their style of interpreting texts as "gynocriticism" or "clitoral h e r m e n e u t i c s , " rejecting m o r e traditional a p ­ p r o a c h e s as inadmissibly "phallocentric." Does it matter that academic feminists speak of replacing seminars w i t h "ovulars," history w i t h "herstory," a n d theology with "thealogy"? Should it c o n c e r n u s that m o s t teachers of w o m e n ' s studies think of k n o w l e d g e as a "patriarchal construction"? It should, because twenty years ago the nation's academies offered fewer than twenty courses in w o m e n ' s studies; today s u c h courses n u m b e r in the tens of thousands. Such rapid g r o w t h , w h i c h even n o w shows little signs of abating, is u n ­ p r e c e d e n t e d in the annals of higher education. T h e feminist coloniza-

TRANSFORMING

THE

ACADEMY

51

tion of the American academy warrants study. W h a t is driving it? Is it a good thing? W o m e n ' s studies, t h o u g h officially an academic discipline, is con­ sciously an a r m of the w o m e n ' s m o v e m e n t , dedicated to a Utopian ideal of social transformation. In the w o r d s of the p r e a m b l e to the National W o m e n ' s Studies Association constitution, " W o m e n ' s Studies owes its existence to the m o v e m e n t for the liberation of w o m e n ; the feminist m o v e m e n t exists because w o m e n are oppressed. . . . W o m e n ' s Studies, then, is e q u i p p i n g w o m e n . . . to transform the w o r l d to o n e that will b e free of all o p p r e s s i o n . " The goal may b e salutary, b u t e q u i p p i n g s t u d e n t s to "transform the world" is not quite the same as e q u i p p i n g t h e m with the k n o w l e d g e they need for getting o n in the world. M u c h of w h a t s t u d e n t s learn in w o m e n ' s studies classes is n o t disciplined scholarship b u t feminist ideology. T h e y learn that the traditional c u r r i c u l u m is largely a male construction a n d not to be trusted. They learn that in order to rid society of sexism a n d racism one m u s t first realign the goals of education, p u r g i n g the curricu­ l u m of its white male bias a n d "reconceptualizing" its subject matter. The majority of w o m e n in the academy are n o t feminist activists. T h e y are mainstream equity feminists: they embrace n o special feminist d o c ­ trines; they merely w a n t for w o m e n w h a t they w a n t for e v e r y o n e — a "fair field a n d n o favors." Equity feminists, regarding themselves as engaged on equal terms in contributing to a universal culture of h u m a n i t y , d o n o t represent themselves as speaking for W o m e n . They m a k e n o d u b i o u s claims to u n m a s k a social reality that most w o m e n fail to perceive. Their moderate, u n p r e t e n t i o u s p o s t u r e has p u t t h e m in the s h a d o w of the less h u m b l e a n d m o r e vocal g e n d e r feminists. The gender feminists are convinced they are in the v a n g u a r d of a conceptual revolution of historic p r o p o r t i o n s , a n d their perspective, p r e d ­ icated o n the "discovery" of the sex/gender system, is a beguiling one. Carolyn Heilbrun exults in the conviction that the N e w Feminist t h o u g h t is comparable to the intellectual revolutions p r o d u c e d by C o p e r n i c u s , Darwin, a n d F r e u d . Gerda Lerner, professor of history at the University of Wisconsin a n d a u t h o r of the influential b o o k The Creation of Patriarchy, warns that attempts to describe w h a t is n o w going o n in w o m e n ' s schol­ arship "would be like trying to describe the Renaissance—ten years after it b e g a n . " Sociologist Jessie Bernard c o m p a r e s the feminist scholars to the philosophes of the French Enlightenment, characterizing the explosion of research in w o m e n ' s scholarship as "the s t o r m i n g of the Bastille" or "the shot heard r o u n d the world." "Academia will never b e the s a m e again," she claims. Alison Jaggar, director of w o m e n ' s studies at the 2

3

4

5

52

W H O

STOLE

FEMINISM?

University of Colorado, says, "We're developing a whole reconstruction of the w o r l d from the perspective of w o m e n , with the k e y w o r d being 'womencenteredness.' " T h e g e n d e r feminists are exuberantly confident that they are qualified to overhaul the American educational system. Unlike other, m o r e m o d e s t reformers, these w o m e n are convinced that their insights into social real­ ity u n i q u e l y e q u i p t h e m to u n d e r s t a n d the educational needs of American w o m e n . Their revolution is t h u s n o t confined to "feminist theory." O n the contrary, it is essentially practical, pedagogical, a n d bureaucratic. N o t all g e n d e r feminist academics teach w o m e n ' s studies. Many are in administration. S o m e direct h a r a s s m e n t centers. Others have controlling positions in s u c h para-academic organizations as the Association of Amer­ ican Colleges (AAC) or the American Association of University W o m e n (AAUW). Some h e a d w o m e n ' s centers that d o research o n w o m e n . Still others h e a d " c u r r i c u l u m transformation projects." "The goal of feminist teaching," says University of Massachusetts femi­ nist p h i l o s o p h e r A n n Ferguson, "is n o t only to raise consciousness a b o u t . . . male d o m i n a t i o n system b u t also to create w o m e n a n d m e n w h o are agents of social c h a n g e . " T h a t motivation, powerfully e n h a n c e d by the g e n d e r feminists' faith that they are privy to revolutionary insights into the n a t u r e of k n o w l e d g e a n d society, inspires t h e m w i t h a missionary fervor u n m a t c h e d by a n y other g r o u p in the c o n t e m p o r a r y academy. Not only d o they p u r s u e their mission in their classrooms, they are also involved in "transforming the a c a d e m y " to r e n d e r it m o r e w o m e n - c e n ­ tered. G e n d e r feminists are at w o r k in h u n d r e d s of transformation proj­ ects for changing university curricula that they regard as inadmissibly "masculinist." T h e bias of the traditional "white male curriculum" m u s t b e eliminated, a n d n e w p r o g r a m s that include w o m e n m u s t replace those in w h i c h w o m e n are "absent," "silent," "invisible." T h e whole "knowledge base" m u s t b e transformed. G e n d e r feminists have b e e n influential in the academy far b e y o n d their n u m b e r s partly because their h i g h zeal a n d single-mindedness b r o o k n o opposition; or rather, because they treat opposition to their exotic stand­ p o i n t as opposition to the cause of w o m e n . University trustees, adminis­ trators, foundation officers, a n d g o v e r n m e n t officials tend generally to be sympathetic to w o m e n ' s causes. Apart from an unwillingness to b e con­ sidered insensitive a n d retrograde, they are aware that w o m e n have been discriminated against a n d m a y still n e e d special protections. So they w a n t to d o w h a t is right. But w h e n future historians go back to find out w h a t h a p p e n e d to American universities at the e n d of the twentieth century that so w e a k e n e d t h e m , politicized t h e m , a n d r e n d e r e d t h e m illiberal, 6

7

TRANSFORMING

THE

53

ACADEMY

anti-intellectual, a n d h u m o r l e s s places, they will find that a m o n g the principal causes of the decline was the failure of intelligent, powerful, a n d well-intentioned officials to distinguish between the reasonable a n d j u s t cause of equity feminism a n d its unreasonable, unjust, ideological sister — g e n d e r feminism.

At the 1992 National W o m e n ' s Studies Conference in Austin, Texas, that I described in chapter 1, the m o d e r a t o r u r g e d us to "dwell for a m o m e n t o n success. . . . T h i n k a b o u t the fact that w e have b e e n so s u c ­ cessful in transforming the c u r r i c u l u m . " My sister Louise, w h o a t t e n d e d the conference with m e , has two sons in college a n d a d a u g h t e r starting j u n i o r high, a n d this r e m a r k alarmed her. Having s p e n t several h o u r s with the Austin conferees, she h a d d o u b t s a b o u t their c o m p e t e n c e a n d reasonableness. " W h a t exactly did she m e a n ? " she asked m e . She did well to ask; for she h a d s t u m b l e d on an area of feminist activism that has g o n e virtually u n n o t i c e d by the public. W h a t began as a reasonable a t t e m p t to redress the neglect of w o m e n in the c u r r i c u l u m has quietly b e c o m e a potent force affecting the American classroom at every level, from the primary grades to graduate school. A nationwide feminist campaign to change the c u r r i c u l u m of the Amer­ ican academy is receiving s u p p o r t from the highest strata of e d u c a t i o n a n d government. T h e Ford F o u n d a t i o n recently helped l a u n c h a National Clearinghouse for C u r r i c u l u m Transformation Resources at T o w s o n State University in Maryland, to give the growing n u m b e r of transformation consultants in our nation's schools quick access to resources. T h e T o w s o n center provides consultants a n d project directors w i t h readings o n femi­ nist pedagogy, samples of w o m e n - c e n t e r e d syllabi, lists of w o m e n c e n tered textbooks, a n d suggestions for w o m e n - c e n t e r e d audiovisual materials. It provides aspiring transformationists w i t h m a n u a l s o n h o w to start their o w n projects, as well as a list of resources to h e l p t h e m to "counter resistance." T h e transformation projects receive g e n e r o u s fund­ ing from major foundations a n d from federal agencies s u c h as the W o m ­ en's Education Equity Act Program a n d the F u n d for the I m p r o v e m e n t of Postsecondary Education (FIPSE), as well as from the state g o v e r n m e n t s of N e w Jersey, Tennessee, Montana, Pennsylvania, Maryland, a n d Califor­ nia. In a recent b o o k chronicling the t r i u m p h s of "the transformation m o v e ­ ment," Caryn McTighe Musil reports o n the success of the " h u n d r e d s of curriculum transformation projects a r o u n d the c o u n t r y since 1 9 8 0 . " In fact, the transformationists have b e e n at it for longer than that, b u t they 8

9

54

W H O

STOLE

FEMINISM?

are only n o w c o m i n g into their own. O n April 16, 1 9 9 3 , m o r e than eight h u n d r e d teachers, college professors, school administrators, a n d state officials gathered at the Hilton Hotel in Parsippany, N e w Jersey, for a three-day "national" conference o n curriculum transformation. The offi­ cial p r o g r a m gives the overview: "A celebration of twenty years of curric­ u l u m transformation, this conference will bring together teachers, scholars, activists, a n d cultural leaders to share insights, knowledge, a n d strategies to assess o u r a c c o m p l i s h m e n t s a n d to imagine together a curric­ u l u m for the 21st century." T h e conference w a s s p o n s o r e d by a variety of state a n d federal agencies s u c h as the National E n d o w m e n t for the Humanities, the Pennsylvania H u m a n i t i e s Council, a n d the N e w Jersey C o m m i t t e e for the Humanities. T h e keynoter, N e w Jersey chancellor of education Edward Goldberg, p o i n t e d o u t w i t h great p r i d e that N e w Jersey h a d invested "millions" in the c u r r i c u l u m transformation project. "The rest of America cannot be far behind." Most of the eight h u n d r e d transformationists at the Parsippany Hilton h a d their expenses p a i d by their e m p l o y e r s — m a i n l y state governments, p u b l i c schools, a n d p u b l i c colleges a n d universities. Yet very few people k n o w w h a t transformationists d o , w h y they d o it, or w h y it might matter. Ms. magazine used to r u n a feature called "The Click Experience," in w h i c h a w o m a n w o u l d write in to tell a b o u t the m o m e n t w h e n a light w e n t o n in h e r h e a d a n d she h a d her first blazing realization of h o w w o m e n h a d b e e n cheated a n d silenced. The "click" is a q u a n t u m leap in feminist a w a r e n e s s — " t h e s u d d e n c o m i n g to critical consciousness a b o u t one's o p p r e s s i o n . " G e n d e r feminist academics have their o w n particular version of the click experience: it h a p p e n s at the m o m e n t one "sees" that the entire college c u r r i c u l u m has, with very few exceptions, been w r o u g h t a n d written by m e n , a b o u t m e n , a n d for m e n . History is "his story," m e n telling a b o u t m e n . Social science research, usually c o n d u c t e d by m e n a n d a b o u t m e n , h o l d s u p m e n as the n o r m ; w o m e n are the Other. The great t h o u g h t s w e study, the great art w e revere, the literature we learn to love are largely male achievements. Men w r o t e the books, a n d they concocted the theories: k n o w l e d g e is a male creation. In a single "click," a w o m a n realizes that the culture a n d science m e n have created are not only w r o n g b u t self-serving a n d d a n g e r o u s for w o m e n . T h e experience often has a depressing a n d alienating effect o n a w o m a n ; the culture she h a d revered is s u d d e n l y n o t hers, a n d she m a y feel like a child of indifferent parents w h o discovers at a late age that she has been a d o p t e d . Sooner or later, m o s t w o m e n , g e n d e r feminist or not, have something

TRANSFORMING

THE

55

ACADEMY

like a click experience. Men, except for the m o r e m y o p i c a n d h i d e b o u n d a m o n g t h e m , have it too. J u s t a b o u t everything bears the impress of patriarchy: high culture is largely a male achievement. As w o m e n have attained parity in e c o n o m i c status a n d access to higher learning a n d culture, the disparities, injustices, a n d exclusions of the past have b e e n b r o u g h t h o m e to t h e m as never before. The evidence that w o m e n have b e e n excluded, a n d their abilities as thinkers a n d writers d e m e a n e d , is everywhere. But once a w o m a n a p p r e ­ ciates the extent to w h i c h culture a n d civilization have b e e n m a l e - d o m i ­ nated, two roads lie before her. She can learn w h a t can b e learned a b o u t w o m e n ' s past achievements, a n d learn as well the reasons that their con­ tributions to the larger enterprise were n o t greater; a n d she can t h e n avail herself of the freedom she n o w has to accept the challenge to j o i n w i t h m e n on equal terms in the m a k i n g of a n e w a n d richer culture. O r s h e can react to the cultural a n d scientific heritage as "androcentric" a n d m o v e consciously to reconstruct the " k n o w l e d g e base." It is at this j u n c t u r e that equity a n d gender feminist academics begin to go their separate ways. The former stay w i t h i n the b o u n d s of traditional scholarship a n d j o i n in its enterprise. T h e latter seek to transform scholarship to m a k e it " w o m e n centered." Géraldine Ruthchild, a professor of English at Albion College, typifies the gender feminist reaction to the keen awareness that so m u c h of c u l t u r e has been m a d e by m e n . Her click s o u n d e d w h e n she came across these remarks by Louise Bernikow: " W h i c h writers have survived their time a n d w h i c h have n o t d e p e n d s u p o n w h o noticed t h e m a n d chose to record the notice. . . . Such p o w e r , in England a n d America, has always b e l o n g e d to white m e n . " Professor Ruthchild writes, "After reading Louise Berni­ k o w . . . I was never again the s a m e p e r s o n , for her w o r d s abruptly crys­ tallized r a n d o m ideas I h a d h a d into a g e m of r e v e l a t i o n . " The historian Gerda Lerner's revelation illuminates w h a t for h e r is a n ongoing atrocity. She asserts that m e n have been teaching w o m e n that s o u n d thinking m u s t exclude feeling. " T h u s they [women] have learned to mistrust their o w n experience a n d devalue it. W h a t w i s d o m can there be in menses? W h a t source of k n o w l e d g e in the milk-filled b r e a s t ? " T h e cognitive abuse of w o m e n fills Lerner w i t h anger: " W e have long k n o w n that rape has b e e n a way of terrorizing us a n d k e e p i n g u s in subjection. N o w we also k n o w that we have participated, although unwittingly, in the rape of o u r m i n d s . " The gender feminist "re-vision" has b e e n described in m o r e sober terms in a b r o c h u r e distributed by the prestigious American Association of Colleges: 1 0

11

12

1 3

56

W H O

STOLE

FEMINISM?

In the last two decades, educators have b e g u n to recognize that the experiences a n d perspectives of w o m e n are almost totally absent from the traditional c u r r i c u l u m . Surveys in the 1970s revealed, for example, that history textbooks devoted less than 1 p e r c e n t of their coverage to w o m e n ; that the m o s t widely used textbook in art his­ tory did n o t i n c l u d e a single w o m a n artist; a n d that literature courses contained, o n average, only 8 p e r c e n t w o m e n authors. Such discoveries have led m a n y p e o p l e to question the validity of the version of h u m a n experience offered by the liberal a r t s . 14

It is possible to c o m e to s u c h an awareness w i t h o u t deciding that the rational r e s p o n s e is to overhaul the entire c a n o n of W e s t e r n experience. M a n y scholars have b e g u n to take pains to give w o m e n the recognition that was often d e n i e d t h e m in past accounts. W o m e n scholars of a n t h r o ­ pology, psychology, a n d sociology have discovered that m u c h previous research, w h i c h t e n d e d to concentrate o n m e n , generalized to conclusions that did n o t necessarily a p p l y to w o m e n . For the past ten or fifteen years social scientists have b e e n w o r k i n g to correct this neglect. Feminist liter­ ary scholars have discovered a n d rescued m a n y gifted w o m e n writers from u n d e s e r v e d oblivion. T e x t b o o k publishers n o w take pains to see that w o m e n are duly r e p r e s e n t e d a n d that they are n o t demeaningly stereotyped. Such achievements stay well within the b o u n d s of the k i n d of equitable a d j u s t m e n t that a m a i n s t r e a m feminism has rightly de­ m a n d e d . But the g e n d e r feminists are n o t content with them. They w a n t transformation; a m e r e correction of the record w o n ' t d o . T h e r e are, m o s t p e o p l e are aware, t w o m e a n i n g s to the w o r d history. O n the o n e h a n d , history refers to a series of events that actually h a p ­ p e n e d . O n the o t h e r h a n d , there is History, an account of w h a t h a p p e n e d . T h e g e n d e r feminists claim that History (written by m e n a n d focusing almost exclusively o n m e n ) has systematically distorted history. It is u n d e n i a b l e that scholars often failed to recognize the role a n d i m p o r t a n c e of m a n y gifted a n d historically i m p o r t a n t w o m e n . These n e ­ glected w o m e n deserve their place in History, a n d historians have a professional obligation to give it to t h e m . Nevertheless, the paucity of w o m e n in History is, in the m a i n , d u e not to the bias of male historians b u t rather to their concentration o n politics, war, a n d conceptual change. Such History inevitably reflects the fact that w o m e n have n o t been al­ lowed to m a k e history in the way that m e n — a n d relatively few m e n at t h a t — h a v e b e e n allowed to m a k e it. It is a pervasive fact of history that m e n have rarely p e r m i t t e d w o m e n to participate in military a n d political affairs a n d that they have k e p t t h e m away from learning a n d the high

TRANSFORMING

THE

ACADEMY

57

arts. Any History that is faithful to the facts m u s t a c k n o w l e d g e that in the past w o m e n were simply n o t p e r m i t t e d the degree of freedom c o m m e n ­ surate with their talents. As Virginia Woolf p o i n t e d out, even the m o s t gifted sister of Shakespeare w o u l d , tragically, never have b e e n given the opportunities to m a k e use of h e r genius. Lamentable as this m a y be, there is simply n o h o n e s t way of writing w o m e n back into the historical narra­ tive in a way that depicts t h e m as m o v e r s a n d shakers of equal i m p o r t a n c e to m e n . To be sure, giving w o m e n only 1 p e r c e n t of the narrative is too little, b u t 3 0 percent w o u l d b e too m u c h , a n d giving w o m e n half the space in a conventional History w o u l d blatantly falsify the narrative. N o r can his­ torians d o m u c h a b o u t the " c o m m o n p e o p l e " w h o m G o d m a d e so n u ­ m e r o u s . T h e vast majority of people, including most m e n a n d almost all w o m e n , have h a d a disproportionately small share in the history-making decisions a b o u t war, politics, a n d culture that historians c o u n t as m o m e n ­ tous. But w h a t is a n y historian of integrity s u p p o s e d to d o a b o u t that? It is a standard feminist objection to traditional History that it focuses too m u c h o n m a l e - d o m i n a t e d activities s u c h as politics, war, a n d , m o r e recently, science. A m o r e balanced History w o u l d focus o n areas of life that w o u l d give w o m e n greater visibility a n d i m p o r t a n c e . In effect, the complaint is that w o m e n figure importantly in social history b u t that political history has been given p r i d e of place. This w a s a reasonable grievance twenty years ago, a n d the trend in high school a n d college history b o o k s since t h e n has b e e n toward social history. Even a strongly feminist report o n the c u r r i c u l u m by the Wellesley College Center for Research o n W o m e n p o i n t s this out: "An informal survey of twenty U.S. history textbooks compiled each year from 1984 to 1 9 8 9 found a gradual b u t steady shift away from an overwhelming e m p h a s i s o n law, wars, a n d control over territory a n d public policy, toward a n e m p h a s i s o n people's daily lives in m a n y k i n d s of c i r c u m s t a n c e s . " In fact, b o t h political a n d social history are i m p o r t a n t . By itself, social history, too, is insufficient. Even an exhaustive survey of daily life c a n n o t substitute for the traditional k i n d of political history. Students n e e d a reliable account of the events, philosophies, a n d cultural d e v e l o p m e n t s that have m a d e a difference in the fates of nations a n d peoples, r e n d e r i n g some m o r e successful a n d p r o s p e r o u s t h a n others. Sooner or later the responsible teacher of history m u s t get d o w n to the history of politics, war, a n d social change. But the gender feminists have far m o r e ambitious goals t h a n the re­ dressing of historical neglect a n d bias. If history c a n n o t b e c h a n g e d , History can be. Better yet, w h y n o t insist that all w e ever have of history 15

58

W H O

STOLE

FEMINISM?

is the History w e write, a n d that d e p e n d s on w h o writes it? Heretofore, m e n have written History, giving us a masculinist a c c o u n t of the past; n o w w o m e n are free to change that version of History to m a k e it m o r e women-centered. It is n o w c o m m o n practice in high school textbooks to revise History in ways that attribute to w o m e n a political a n d cultural importance they simply did n o t have. Overt revisionism is rare. More often, history is distorted a n d the i m p o r t a n c e of w o m e n is falsely inflated w i t h o u t directly t a m p e r i n g w i t h the facts. High school history texts n o w lavish attention o n m i n o r female figures. Sixteen-year-old Sybil Ludington, w h o alerted colonial soldiers in a failed a t t e m p t to cut off the escape of a British raiding party, gets m o r e space in America: Its People and Its Values than Paul Revere. In the s a m e textbook, Maria Mitchell, a nineteenth-century a s t r o n o m e r w h o discovered a comet, gets far m o r e attention than Albert Einstein. In a n o t h e r p o p u l a r high school text, there are three pictures of Civil W a r n u r s e s b u t n o n e of General S h e r m a n or General G r a n t . 16

O n e of the ways h u m a n agents transform the course of history is by m a k i n g war. T h e p r e e m i n e n c e of m e n in w a r seems inescapable. But the feminist p h i l o s o p h e r a n d transformationist Elizabeth Minnich maintains that w o m e n have played i m p o r t a n t roles in decisions a b o u t war a n d in w a r itself. W o m e n have b e e n p a r t of a n d actively o p p o s e d to war t h r o u g h o u t the ages a n d across cultures. W o m e n have fought; w o m e n have tried to s t o p the fighting; w o m e n have been on the front lines as s u p ­ pliers, as nurses, as spies; a n d have w o r k e d b e h i n d the lines as cooks, secretaries, seamstresses, drivers, experts in language; to keep the c o u n t r y going. . . . W i t h o u t w o m e n . . . n o war could ever have been fought. 17

Minnich does n o t give examples, b u t w h e r e historians have overlooked or a i r b r u s h e d w o m e n o u t of significant roles they played in war, she is right to d e m a n d a truer a n d m o r e complete picture. However, she also implies that a fuller picture w o u l d reveal that w o m e n ' s role in warfare has b e e n pivotal. In fact it w o u l d not; n o a m o u n t of s u p p l e m e n t a t i o n can change the fact that w o m e n ' s roles in w a r have been relatively m i n o r a n d their occasional protests against w a r have generally been unavailing. N o r w o u l d it b e right to deprecate the i m p o r t a n c e of war as a factor in histor­ ical change; it r e m a i n s true that w a r — c o n d u c t e d almost exclusively by

TRANSFORMING

THE

ACADEMY

59

m e n — h a s been the agent of cataclysmic historical upheavals, a n d a n y adequate History m u s t reflect that fact, even if it m e a n s "leaving w o m e n out." The idea that m e n have a w a r d e d themselves a d o m i n a n c e in history that they did n o t actually possess is b e c o m i n g increasingly p o p u l a r . I recently gave a public lecture o n feminism a n d education before a n au­ dience that included several transformationists. In the lecture I defended traditional ideals of striving for objectivity a n d historical veracity. An annoyed m a n in the audience asked, "But h o w d o w e k n o w that Mrs. W a s h i n g t o n did n o t give her h u s b a n d all his ideas?" I replied that w e h a d n o evidence for that. "Yes," said m y interlocutor, n o w very excited, "that is j u s t the point. There is no evidence! T h e r e c a n n o t b e evidence. Because those writing history w o u l d have suppressed it: the fact that there is n o history proves nothing. It's lost to u s forever." I answered that w e have got to rely o n the evidence w e have until w e have good reason to change o u r m i n d s . I p o i n t e d o u t that it is m o s t implausible that Martha W a s h i n g t o n k n e w m u c h a b o u t military cam­ paigns or statecraft. It's also possible (and j u s t as unlikely) that o n e of Washington's great-aunts was the brains b e h i n d his military p r o w e s s . W e just can't d o history that way. I could see that s o m e m e m b e r s of the a u d i e n c e were altogether u n i m ­ pressed with m y rejoinder a n d m y " o b t u s e " insistence o n a conventional historical reasonableness, a n d I k n e w why: transformationists w a n t "Herstory." They are impatient with an a p p r o a c h to History that i m p e d e s the kind of revisionism so m a n y g e n d e r feminists are d e m a n d i n g as p a r t of a "transformed k n o w l e d g e base." The gender feminist "reconceptualization" of History is m o v i n g right along at the university level. But the curricular changes are even m o r e dramatic in the secondary a n d elementary schools. Because local a n d state governments are closely involved in public school curricula, a n d because they are very sensitive a n d responsive to g e n d e r feminist pressures, these changes are being i m p o s e d by fiat o n t h o u s a n d s of p u b l i c schools. Writers of c o n t e m p o r a r y history a n d social science texts, especially for the primary a n d secondary grades, m a k e special efforts to p r o v i d e "role models" for girls. Precollege texts usually have a n a b u n d a n c e of pictures; these n o w typically s h o w w o m e n w o r k i n g in factories or looking t h r o u g h microscopes. A "stereotypical" picture of a w o m a n w i t h a b a b y is a frowned-upon rarity. Instead, a k i n d of reverse stereotyping has b e c o m e an informal requisite. O n c e Charles Lindbergh was a great role m o d e l for American boys; today, a textbook will m a k e a p o i n t of informing s t u d e n t s about Lindberg's W o r l d W a r II isolationism. In the s a m e text, A n n e

60

W H O

STOLE

FEMINISM?

M o r r o w Lindbergh's very considerable achievements will be praised, b u t there will b e n o m e n t i o n of her dalliance w i t h fascism. T h e misplaced efforts to avoid slighting w o m e n lead quickly to exten­ sive "re-visionings" of history, art, a n d the sciences. T h e Center for the Study of Social a n d Political C h a n g e at Smith College did a critical study of three of the m o s t widely u s e d n e w high school American history textbooks. Because of state m a n d a t e s for gender equality, the a u t h o r s of the n e w textbooks h a d to go o u t of their way to give w o m e n p r o m i n e n c e . T h e Smith researchers w e r e n o t h a p p y w i t h the results: 18

There is o n e major p r o b l e m . . . in writing nonsexist history text­ b o o k s . Most of America's history is male-dominated, in part because in m o s t states w o m e n were n o t allowed to vote in federal elections or h o l d office until the twentieth century. This m a y b e regrettable, b u t it is still a fact. W h a t , then, is a nonsexist writer of the American history textbook to do? T h e answer is filler feminism. 19

Filler feminism p a d s history with its o w n "facts" designed to drive h o m e the lessons feminists wish to impart. The following passage from o n e of the m o s t widely used high school American history texts, American Voices, is a g o o d example of the sort of "feel good" feminist spin that has b e c o m e the n o r m in o u r nation's textbooks. A typical [Indian! family t h u s consisted of an old w o m a n , her d a u g h t e r s w i t h their h u s b a n d s a n d children, a n d her u n m a r r i e d g r a n d d a u g h t e r s a n d g r a n d s o n s . . . . Politically, w o m e n ' s roles a n d status varied from culture to culture. W o m e n were m o r e likely to a s s u m e leadership roles a m o n g the agricultural peoples than a m o n g n o m a d i c h u n t e r s . In addition, in m a n y cases in w h i c h w o m e n did n o t b e c o m e village chiefs, they still exercised substantial political p o w e r . For example, in Iroquois villages, w h e n selected m e n sat in a circle to discuss a n d m a k e decisions, the senior w o m e n of the village s t o o d b e h i n d t h e m , lobbying a n d instructing the m e n . In addition, the elder w o m e n n a m e d the male village chiefs to their positions. 20

T h o u g h s o m e of the information a b o u t the Iroquois is vaguely correct, the p a r a g r a p h is blatantly designed to give high school s t u d e n t s the impression that m o s t Native American societies t e n d e d to be politically matriarchal. Since that is n o t true, the textbook "covers" itself by the

TRANSFORMING

THE

61

ACADEMY

formal disclaimer that "in m a n y cases . . . the w o m e n did not b e c o m e village chiefs." (In h o w m a n y cases? A small minority? A large majority?) This is patronizing to b o t h Indians a n d w o m e n , a n d there is n o basis for it. There are m o r e t h a n 3 5 0 recognized Indian t r i b e s — o n e can n o m o r e generalize a b o u t t h e m t h a n o n e can a b o u t " h u m a n i t y . " Here is w h a t Gilbert Sewall of the American Textbook Council says a b o u t this passage: "Female-headed households? Bad old history m a y cede to b a d n e w his­ tory. The presentist spin o n Indian society found in the American Voices passage is less versed in evidence t h a n aligned to c o n t e m p o r a r y feminist politics a n d p e r s p e c t i v e s . " Social studies texts are full of s u c h "filler feminism"; i n d e e d , in s o m e cases, feminist pressures d e t e r m i n e w h a t is excluded even m o r e t h a n they determine w h a t is to b e included. In an extensive survey of the n e w textbooks written u n d e r feminist guidelines, N e w York University psy­ chologist Paul Vitz could find n o positive portrayal of r o m a n c e , marriage, or m o t h e r h o o d . 21

22

By far the m o s t noticeable ideological position in the readers is a feminist one. . . . To begin with, certain t h e m e s j u s t d o n o t o c c u r in these stories a n d articles. Hardly a story celebrates m o t h e r h o o d or marriage as a positive goal or as a rich a n d meaningful w a y of living. . . . T h o u g h great literature, from Tristan and Isolde to Shakespeare to J a n e Austen to Louisa May Alcott, is filled w i t h r o m a n c e a n d the desire to marry, o n e finds very little of that in these t e x t s . 23

That American s t u d e n t s are s h o r t o n cultural literacy is well k n o w n . W h a t is n o t k n o w n is that the transformationists are exacerbating the situation. A 1989 s t u d y entitled " W h a t Do O u r 17 Year O l d s Know?" b y Diane Ravitch a n d Chester Finn d e t e r m i n e d that m o r e high school stu­ dents recognized the n a m e of Harriet T u b m a n ( 8 3 percent) t h a n W i n s t o n Churchill ( 7 8 percent) or J o s e p h Stalin ( 5 3 percent); in fact, m o r e k n e w about Ms. T u b m a n t h a n k n e w that A b r a h a m Lincoln issued the Emanci­ pation Proclamation (68 percent) or that the Constitution divides p o w e r s between the states a n d the federal g o v e r n m e n t ( 4 3 p e r c e n t ) . Seventyseven percent recognized that w o m e n w o r k e d in factories d u r i n g W o r l d W a r II, b u t fewer could identify the Great Depression (75 percent) or find France o n a m a p (65 percent) or k n e w that the Renaissance w a s charac­ terized b y cultural a n d technological advances (39 p e r c e n t ) . In the fall of 1992, Dr. F r a n k Lutz, a fellow at the Harvard University Institute of Politics, surveyed Ivy League s t u d e n t s to find o u t h o w m u c h history a n d civics they k n e w . His survey of 3 , 1 1 9 of o u r nation's brightest a n d best24

25

62

W H O

STOLE

FEMINISM?

e d u c a t e d s t u d e n t s revealed that three out of four did n o t k n o w that T h o m a s Jefferson h a d a u t h o r e d the o p e n i n g w o r d s of the Declaration of I n d e p e n d e n c e . Most (three o u t of four) were unable to n a m e four Su­ p r e m e C o u r t justices, n o r could they n a m e the U.S. senators from their h o m e states. More t h a n a third could not n a m e the p r i m e minister of Great Britain. Such c o n s e q u e n c e s are typical a n d predictable w h e n teach­ ers are distracted from the material they s h o u l d b e teaching by the effort to be ideologically correct. T h e p r o b l e m of "filler feminism" will get worse. Transformationists are well organized, a n d their influence is growing apace. Because of transfor­ mationist pressures, the law in s o m e states n o w actually m a n d a t e s "gen­ der-fair" history. T h e California State D e p a r t m e n t of Education has issued guidelines called "Standards for Evaluation of Instructional Materials with Respect to Social C o n t e n t . " According to Education C o d e section 6 0 0 4 0 ( a ) a n d 6 0 0 4 4 ( a ) , " W h e n e v e r an instructional material presents d e v e l o p m e n t s in history or current events, or achievements in art, science, or any other field, the contributions of w o m e n a n d m e n should be rep­ resented in approximately equal n u m b e r . " In effect, this law d e m a n d s that the historian b e m o r e attentive to the d e m a n d s of "equal representa­ tion" t h a n to the historical facts. Needless to say, histories a n d social studies p r e s e n t e d in this "fair" b u t factually skewed m a n n e r constitute an u n w o r t h y a n d d i s h o n e s t a p p r o a c h to learning. 2 6

In the history of the high arts the absence of w o m e n is deplorable b u t largely irreparable. F e w w o m e n in the past were allowed to train a n d w o r k in the major arts. Because of this, m e n have w r o u g h t most of the w o r k s that are c o m m o n l y recognized as masterpieces. But here, espe­ cially, the t e m p t a t i o n to redress past w r o n g s t h r o u g h "reconceptualization" has p r o v e d irresistible. T h e transformationists claim that w o r k s of art m a d e by w o m e n have b e e n passed over because the s t a n d a r d s have always been tilted to favor m e n . Peggy M c i n t o s h , a director at the Wellesley College Center for Research o n W o m e n a n d a leader in the m o v e m e n t to transform the c u r r i c u l u m , calls for m e a s u r e s to redress the historical w r o n g that w o m ­ en's art has suffered at the h a n d s of male critics: T h e s t u d y of m u s i c , art a n d architecture is transformed if o n e goes b e y o n d those w o r k s that w e r e m a d e for public use, display, or performance a n d were s u p p o r t e d by the aristocratic or institutional p a t r o n s . O n e begins to s t u d y quilts, breadloaf shapes, clothing, pots, or songs a n d dances that p e o p l e w h o h a d n o musical literacy or training t o o k for g r a n t e d . 27

TRANSFORMING

THE

ACADEMY

63

Janis Bell, an art historian at Kenyon College, asks the question repeated in t h o u s a n d s of w o m e n ' s studies courses: "But is the traditional rectangle of a canvas any less limiting to the design t h a n the rectangle of the q u i l t ? " Professor Bell calls for reconceptualizing "our courses to create a place for w o m e n that is n o longer p e r i p h e r a l — b u t rather the center of our inquiry into the history of the visual a r t s . " Professor Bell a n d Dr. M c i n t o s h ask us to "go b e y o n d " the great p u b l i c w o r k s of art, s u c h as cathedrals, to look at w h a t w o m e n have d o n e . A n d a quilt can have great aesthetic value. But the loveliest quilt is plainly inferior to the canvases of Titian a n d R e m b r a n d t in subtlety, complexity, and power, a n d we s h o u l d be able to acknowledge the neglect of w o m e n ' s art w i t h o u t claiming otherwise. It is in fact true that the s t u d y of w o m e n ' s contributions to art has been neglected a n d that this neglect m u s t b e — a n d is b e i n g — a d d r e s s e d a n d repaired. O n the other h a n d , revisionist proposals to rewrite the historical record or to change the s t a n d a r d s of artistic excellence to p u t w o m e n ' s art o n a p a r w i t h the highest classic achievements m u s t be rejected as u n w o r t h y of a feminism that reveres great art a n d respects truth. 28

29

Feminists w h o resent the "male culture" tend to load their courses w i t h remedial materials emphasizing w o m e n . There is, to b e sure, m u c h inter­ esting n e w scholarship o n w o m e n , a n d it m a y be t e m p t i n g for feminists to devote a disproportionate a m o u n t of class time to it. But teachers have an obligation to ensure that their s t u d e n t s acquire s o m e basic "cultural literacy." Those w h o deploy the n e w scholarship in an a t t e m p t to m a k e u p for the shortcomings of the "male-centered c u r r i c u l u m " almost inevi­ tably shortchange their students. In the s u m m e r of 1992, I attended a w o r k s h o p given by Elizabeth Minnich w h e n she a n d I were b o t h speakers at the a n n u a l meetings of the Phi Kappa Phi Society in Charlotte, N o r t h Carolina. She outlined most of the a r g u m e n t s a b o v e — i n c l u d i n g the critiques of the n o t i o n of masterpiece in art a n d the " h e g e m o n y " of Greco-Euro-American stan­ dards. During the discussion I asked Dr. Minnich if she really believed there were quilts that rivaled or surpassed the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. She admitted that s u c h a j u d g m e n t did i n d e e d s h o c k o u r sensi­ bilities b u t pointedly asked m e in t u r n , "Isn't that w h a t the history of art is all a b o u t — s h o c k e d sensibilities?" Standards a n d tastes are always in flux, she said. W h a t o n e society or g r o u p j u d g e s to b e great a n o t h e r finds banal or offensive. The audience appeared startled by m y o p e n disagreement w i t h Dr.

64

W H O

STOLE

FEMINISM?

Minnich. Their reaction, I a m a s h a m e d to say, m a d e m e restrain myself from asking h e r the questions I badly w a n t e d to ask: W h y should we w o m e n b e playing an undignified game of o n e - u p m a n s h i p that w e are b o u n d to lose? W h a t motivates the revisionist efforts to rewrite History or to revise the s t a n d a r d s of "greatness" in a m a n n e r calculated to give to w o m e n victories a n d t r i u m p h s they never h a d the opportunities to win? W e n o w have those opportunities. W h y can't w e move o n to the future a n d s t o p wasting energy o n resenting (and "rewriting") the past? Many of us w h o call ourselves feminists are very m u c h aware of the past indignities a n d deprivations that have limited w o m e n in the arts. Although w e d e p l o r e the past, w e appreciate that the situation has changed: today, artistically gifted w o m e n d o have their level playing field. So w e reject the call to change the standards of greatness, a n d we are exploring the m o r e constructive alternatives n o w o p e n to us, w h e r e w e j u d g e o u r best p r o s p e c t s to lie. Unfortunately, n o o n e is consulting mainstream feminists a b o u t the value or w i s d o m of proposals to change standards in order to "valorize" w o m e n in the History of art or any other b r a n c h of History. If the trans­ formationists c o n t i n u e to have their u n c h e c k e d way in the academy, large n u m b e r s of American s t u d e n t s will learn to view the great masterpieces in a doctrinally correct w a y — t o their p r o f o u n d loss. Moreover, the w o m e n ' s m o v e m e n t loses by being associated with the partisan a n d resentful antiintellectualism that is inspiring a gynocentric revisionism in art criticism. In literature, as in the arts, g e n d e r feminists have m a d e a sweeping attack o n allegedly male conceptions of excellence. As Elaine Marks of the University of W i s c o n s i n F r e n c h d e p a r t m e n t p u t s it, " W e are contest­ ing the c a n o n a n d the very concept of canons a n d m a s t e r p i e c e s . " Pro­ fessor Marks r e m i n d s u s once again that m a n y gifted w o m e n in the past have n o t received d u e recognition. G o o d feminist scholarship addresses this p r o b l e m a n d in m a n y cases resurrects reputations that w o u l d other­ wise remain overlooked. But gender feminists are n o t content to stop there. As transformationist activist Charlotte Bunch declares, "You can't j u s t a d d w o m e n a n d s t i r . " According to Bunch, w e m u s t attack the p r o b l e m at the roots "by transforming a male culture" a n d by "recon­ structing the w o r l d from the s t a n d p o i n t of w o m e n . " W e must, in other w o r d s , reject the masculinist standards that have placed E u r o p e a n males like Michelangelo a n d Shakespeare in the highest ranks a n d relegated their sisters to oblivion. T h e g e n d e r feminists challenge the very idea of "great art," "great literature," a n d (as w e shall presently see) "great science." Talk of "great­ ness" a n d "masterpieces" implies a ranking of artists a n d works, a "hier30

31

TRANSFORMING

THE

ACADEMY

65

archial" a p p r o a c h considered to b e unacceptable because it implicitly denigrates those w h o are given lesser status. T h e very idea of "genius" is regarded with suspicion as elitist a n d "masculinist." Peggy M c i n t o s h is a m o n g the p r o p o n e n t s of this belief: "The s t u d y of literature usually involves a very few geniuses. . . . To b e ordinary is a sin, in the w o r l d of most literature teachers. . . . O n l y those w o r k s w h i c h distance themselves from an audience, by setting themselves u p in a genre separate from the reader a n d requiring n o answer from the reader, are considered to b e 'literary.' " Mcintosh does n o t explain w h y a w o r k by a genius like Leo Tolstoy s h o u l d b e m o r e "distancing" t h a n a w o r k by a twentieth-century feminist novelist like Margaret Atwood or Alice Walker. The transformationist project has already strongly influenced American universities, a n d the scornful attitude it fosters t o w a r d traditional literary classics is b e c o m i n g increasingly fashionable. T h e organizers of a literary conference on diversity a n d multiculturalism in Boston in J u n e 1 9 9 1 asked the two h u n d r e d - p l u s participating professors to list the five Amer­ ican a u t h o r s they believed m o s t necessary to a quality education. M a r k Twain got thirty-six votes; Toni Morrison, thirty-four; Maya Angelou, twenty-six; Alice Walker, twenty-four; J o h n Steinbeck, twenty-one; Mal­ colm X, eighteen; Richard W r i g h t , thirteen; J a m e s Baldwin, thirteen; Langston H u g h e s , thirteen; William Faulkner, eleven; Nathaniel H a w ­ thorne, ten; Ernest Hemingway, ten; H e n r y David T h o r e a u , nine; Willa Cather, eight; F. Scott Fitzgerald, seven; Dee Brown, seven; W.E.B. D u Bois, seven; Emily Dickinson, six; Amy Tan, six; H a r p e r Lee, five; a n d Walt W h i t m a n , five. T h o m a s Palmer, the Boston Globe reporter w h o covered the conference, s t o p p e d c o u n t i n g after W h i t m a n . In a n y case, H e r m a n Melville, w h o m m o s t literary critics used to regard as the greatest American writer, did n o t m a k e the list. N o r did H e n r y J a m e s . T h e confer­ ees cheered the results of the poll. "This list m a k e s m e feel so m u c h m o r e connected," one participant told the Globe. I, o n the o t h e r h a n d , w a s depressed by the results. 3 2

33

In their critique of the imperial male culture, the transformationist feminists d o n o t confine themselves to i m p u g n i n g the history, art, a n d literature of the past. They also regard logic a n d rationality as "phallocentric." Elizabeth Minnich traces the cultural tradition to a "few privileged males . . . w h o are usually called 'The Greeks.' " In c o m m o n w i t h m a n y other transformationists, Minnich believes that the conceptions of ratio­ nality a n d intelligence are white, male creations: "At p r e s e n t . . . n o t only are students taught 'phallocentric' a n d 'colonial' notions of reason as the forms of rational expression, b u t the full possible range of expression of h u m a n intelligence also tends to b e forced into a severely s h r u n k e n n o 3 4

66

W H O

STOLE

FEMINISM?

35

tion of i n t e l l i g e n c e . " N o t e the reference to a "colonial" rationality with its implication of deliberate subjugation. It is n o w c o m m o n practice to use scare quotes to indicate the feminist suspicion of a "reality" peculiar to male ways of k n o w i n g . For example, the feminist philosopher Joyce Trebilcot speaks of "the apparatuses of 'truth,' 'knowledge,' 'science,' " that m e n use to "project their personalities as reality." T h e attack on traditional culture has t h u s escalated to an attack on the rational s t a n d a r d s a n d m e t h o d s that have been the hallmark of scientific progress. T h e N e w Jersey Project for reforming the public schools circu­ lates a d o c u m e n t entitled "Feminist Scholarship Guidelines." T h e first guideline is unexceptionable: "Feminist scholars seek to recover the lost w o r k a n d t h o u g h t of w o m e n in all areas of h u m a n e n d e a v o r . " But after that, the guidelines unravel: "Feminist scholarship begins with an aware­ ness that m u c h previous scholarship has offered a white, male, Eurocen­ tric, heterosexist, a n d elite view of'reality.' " T h e guidelines elaborate on the attitude toward masculinist scholarship a n d m e t h o d s by q u o t i n g the feminist theorist Elizabeth Fee: "Knowledge was created as an act of aggression—a passive nature h a d to be interro­ gated, u n c l o t h e d , penetrated, a n d compelled by m a n to reveal her se­ crets." Fee's r e s e n t m e n t a n d suspicion of male "ways of k n o w i n g " follows a p a t h well t r o d d e n by s u c h feminist thinkers as Mary Ellman, Catharine MacKinnon, a n d Sandra Harding, w h o s e views of patriarchal knowledge a n d science have quickly b e c o m e central gender feminist doctrine. Play­ ing on the biblical d o u b l e m e a n i n g of knowing to refer b o t h to intercourse a n d to cognition, Ellman a n d MacKinnon claim that m e n a p p r o a c h nature as rapists a p p r o a c h a w o m a n , taking j o y in violating "her," in "penetrat­ ing" h e r secrets. Feminists, says MacKinnon, have finally realized that for m e n , "to k n o w has m e a n t to f u c k . " In a similar m o o d , Sandra Harding suggests that N e w t o n ' s Principles of Mechanics could j u s t as aptly be called " N e w t o n ' s Rape M a n u a l . " T h e N e w Jersey Project is inspired by such insights. As a teacher of p h i l o s o p h y , I s u p p o s e I s h o u l d be h a p p y to see p r o f o u n d issues in meta­ physics a n d the theory of k n o w l e d g e being discussed in government p a m p h l e t s o n educational reform. But it is quite clear that this discussion is m o r e political t h a n philosophical. N e w Jersey gets its theory of knowl­ edge from feminist activists like Paula Rothenberg a n d Catharine Stimpson. That the state s h o u l d u n d e r w r i t e a c o n d e m n a t i o n of "phallocentric" conceptions of reality a n d scientific knowledge is far m o r e a tribute to the energy a n d political influence of the feminist transformationists than to N e w Jersey's p r o f o u n d appreciation of c o n t e m p o r a r y epistemology. 36

37

38

39

TRANSFORMING

THE

ACADEMY

67

Male scholars specializing in their masculinist academic disciplines (from chemistry to philosophy) are k n o w n to transformationists as "sep­ arate k n o w e r s . " The a u t h o r s of Women's Ways oj Knowing, a text m u c h cited by transformationists, define "separate k n o w i n g " as "the g a m e of impersonal reason," a g a m e that has "belonged traditionally to b o y s . " "Separate k n o w e r s are t o u g h - m i n d e d . They are like d o o r m e n at exclusive clubs. They d o n o t w a n t to let anything in unless they are p r e t t y s u r e it is good. . . . Presented with a proposition, separate k n o w e r s immediately look for something w r o n g — a loophole, a factual error, a logical contra­ diction, the omission of contrary e v i d e n c e . " Separate k n o w e r s — m a i n l y m e n — p l a y the " d o u b t i n g g a m e . " T h e au­ thors of Women's Ways of Knowing contrast separate k n o w i n g w i t h a higher state of "connected k n o w i n g " that they view as the m o r e feminine. In place of the " d o u b t i n g game," connected k n o w e r s play the "believing game." This is m o r e congenial for w o m e n because " m a n y w o m e n find it easier to believe than to d o u b t . " Peggy Mcintosh has developed her o w n special variant of the connected-knower/separate-knower distinction. W h y , she asks, s h o u l d schools focus so m u c h o n the p e o p l e at the t o p — o n the " m o u n t a i n strongholds of white m e n " — w h e n w h a t w e need to s t u d y are the "valley values" of w o m e n a n d m i n o r i t i e s ? M c i n t o s h shifts b e t w e e n the m o u n ­ tain-valley m e t a p h o r a n d a distinction that s o u n d s m o r e technical (though it is in fact equally metaphorical) b e t w e e n the two ways of k n o w ­ ing: a narrow, patriarchal, male, "vertical" w a y a n d a richer, female, "lateral" way. The male d o m i n a n t e l i t e — t h e "vertical thinkers," as Dr. M c i n t o s h calls t h e m — a i m at "exact thinking, or decisiveness or mastery of s o m e t h i n g , or being able to m a k e an a r g u m e n t a n d take o n all comers, or t u r n i n g in the perfect p a p e r . " Vertical thinking is "triggered by w o r d s like excel­ lence, accomplishment, success, a n d achievement." Lateral t h i n k i n g is more spiritual, "relational, inclusive." W o m e n a n d p e o p l e of color t e n d to be lateral thinkers. For "laterals," the "aim is n o t to w i n , b u t to b e in a decent relationship with the invisible elements of the universe." Mcintosh elaborates the vertical-lateral m e t a p h o r in p r o p o s i n g five stages in the d e v e l o p m e n t of an acceptable c u r r i c u l u m . H e r " p h a s e the­ ory" is o n e of several p o p u l a r typologies influencing the g e n d e r feminist mission to transform American schools. Stage theories lend themselves well to the w o r k s h o p m o d e a n d provide administrators a useful m e a n s 40

41

42

43

44

68

W H O

STOLE

FEMINISM?

for evaluating faculty. M c i n t o s h grades instructors by the level of the p h a s e s their courses exemplify. In p h a s e o n e , the instructor focuses o n the m o u n t a i n people, or "pin­ nacle p e o p l e . " A p h a s e o n e history course "tends to emphasize laws, wars . . . a n d to tell the stories of w i n n e r s , at the tops of the ladders of socalled success, a c c o m p l i s h m e n t , achievement, a n d excellence." Phase o n e thinkers take for granted s u c h d o g m a s as "the quest for knowledge is a universal h u m a n u n d e r t a k i n g . " Dr. Mcintosh speaks of the " h i d d e n ethos" h a n g i n g over the "phase o n e " curriculum, with its logic of "either or, right or w r o n g . . . . You w i n lest you lose: kill or b e killed." At a 1990 w o r k s h o p for p u b l i c school teachers a n d staff in Brookline, Massachu­ setts, she r e m i n d e d the a u d i e n c e of all the "young white males dangerous to themselves a n d the rest of us, especially in a nuclear a g e . " Their orientation toward logic a n d achievement is w h a t makes t h e m so threat­ ening. By p h a s e two, instructors have noticed the absence of w o m e n a n d minorities, so they find a few exceptional cases to include. Mcintosh calls this the "exceptional minority" p h a s e . She considers this "worse" than p h a s e o n e in that "it p r e t e n d s to s h o w u s ' w o m e n , ' b u t really shows u s only a famous f e w . " In p h a s e three, the instructor begins to get interested in the valley p e o p l e a n d w h y so few have m a d e it u p the m o u n t a i n . "Phase three c u r r i c u l u m w o r k involves getting a n g r y . " T h e emphasis n o w is on w o m e n as a victimized g r o u p . "Most teachers in the United States . . . w e r e taught that the individual is the m a i n unit of society a n d that the U.S. system is a m e r i t o c r a c y . " But at p h a s e three, these naive beliefs get d r o p p e d . Phase three instructors b e c o m e radical critics of the United States: they begin to see " h o w patterns of colonialism, imperialism a n d genocide outside the U.S. m a t c h patterns of domination, militarism a n d genocide at h o m e . " Phase four takes u s b e y o n d w i n n i n g a n d losing. "It p r o d u c e s courses in w h i c h w e are all seen to b e in it together, all having ethnic a n d racial identity, all having culture . . . all with s o m e p o w e r to say n o , a n d yes, a n d 'This I c r e a t e . ' . . . Phase four classes can b e w o n d r o u s in their healing power." Mcintosh's description of p h a s e four is allusive a n d poetic, b u t to h i d e b o u n d "vertical" thinkers n o t very illuminating. She says even less a b o u t the fifth a n d highest p h a s e in her ideal of knowledge. She admits that it is "as yet u n t h i n k a b l e " a n d writes of it in sentences with an a b u n ­ d a n c e of capital letters that signify its apocalyptic character: "Phase five will give u s Reconstructed Global a n d Biological History to Survive B y . " 45

46

47

48

49

50

51

5 2

53

54

TRANSFORMING

THE

69

ACADEMY

Discussing the fifth p h a s e r e m i n d s M c i n t o s h of a r e m a r k m a d e b y the feminist historian Gerda Lerner: "Don't w o r r y . . . w e w e r e 6 0 0 0 years carefully building a patriarchal structure of k n o w l e d g e , a n d we've h a d only 12 years to try to correct it, a n d 12 years is n o t h i n g . " Marilyn R. Schuster a n d Susan R. Van D y n e of Smith College "consult nationally" o n feminist c u r r i c u l u m transformation. They have developed a six-stage theory of pedagogical levels that looks very m u c h like Mc­ intosh's five-phase theory. Theirs describes a feminist alternative to the masculinist c u r r i c u l u m that is to b e pluralistic instead of hierarchical, attentive to difference rather than elitist, concrete rather t h a n abstract. But they, too, are n o t keen to tell u s w h e r e the transformations will lead: 55

W h a t w o u l d a c u r r i c u l u m that offers an inclusive vision of h u m a n experience a n d that attends as carefully to difference a n d g e n u i n e pluralism as to sameness a n d generalization actually look like? Al­ t h o u g h w e possess the tools of analysis that allow u s to conceive of such an education, w e can't, as yet, p o i n t to a n y institution that has entered the m i l l e n n i u m a n d a d o p t e d s u c h a c u r r i c u l u m . 56

But the p r o b l e m is n o t that the " m i l l e n n i u m " of a transformed a c a d e m y has not yet arrived. Schuster a n d Van D y n e d o n o t realize that they have n o idea of the c u r r i c u l u m that is to replace the " a n d r o c e n t r i c " o n e n o w in place. Instead of submitting a c o m p r e h e n s i v e feminist c u r r i c u l u m for serious consideration a n d scrutiny, w e are given a lot of loose a n d meta­ phorical talk a b o u t female epistemologies characterizing h o w w o m e n view the world from a female perspective. Catharine Stimpson, o n e of the m a t r o n saints of transformationism, is a former president of the M o d e r n Language Association a n d , until re­ cently, was d e a n of the Graduate School a n d vice-provost at Rutgers University. W e d o get a fairly detailed description from h e r of a late-stage curriculum that she outlined in Change magazine in 1 9 8 8 . S t i m p s o n begins in conventional transformationist fashion b y d e n o u n c i n g the tra­ ditional p h a s e o n e c u r r i c u l u m for teaching s t u d e n t s to recognize big (male) n a m e s from "Abraham a n d Isaac to Zola" as little m o r e t h a n a game that, "at its m o s t innocent," appeals only to crossword p u z z l e or "Jeopardy" fans. Dean Stimpson has a m o r e "coherent c u r r i c u l u m " in m i n d , a n d because she has b e e n unusually specific, I shall q u o t e h e r at some length: 57

W h a t might a coherent c u r r i c u l u m b e like? Let m e pass o u t s o m e whiffs of a syllabus, w h i c h focuses o n the h u m a n i t i e s . . . . "My syl-

70

W H O

STOLE

FEMINISM?

labus" desires to s h o w . . . culture, n o t as a static a n d immobile structure, b u t as a kinetic series of processes, in w h i c h various forces often c o m p e t e a n d clash. However, a s t u d e n t m u s t have a certain security in order to appreciate diversity. . . . To help create that sense of stability a n d security for U.S. s t u d e n t s . . . m y . . . college c u r r i c u l u m starts w i t h a linear narrative a b o u t America's o w n weird, c o m p l e x history. . . . For example, w h e n the narrative shuttles to­ w a r d s the seventeenth century, it could stop at four texts: Native American m y t h s , legends a n d rituals; the 1 6 3 7 - 3 8 trials of A n n e H u t c h i n s o n ; the p o e m s of A n n e Bradstreet. . . a n d finally, the nar­ rative of Mary Rowlandson, issued in 1 6 8 2 , a b o u t her capture by Native Americans d u r i n g the liberation struggle of 1 6 7 6 . 58

S t i m p s o n gives u s a n idea of h o w one could correct the standard masculinist narratives with their endless discussion of "explorers," "founding fathers," a n d the C o n s t i t u t i o n — n o n e of w h i c h figure in Samp­ son's version of American studies. A m o n g m y novels w o u l d b e Stars in My Pocket like Grains of Sand. . . . Like m a n y c o n t e m p o r a r y speculative fictions, Stars in My Pocket finds conventional heterosexuality absurd. The central figures are two m e n , Rat Korga a n d Marq Dyeth, w h o have a complex, b u t ecstatic, affair. Marq is also the p r o u d p r o d u c t of a rich " n u r t u r e stream." His ancestry includes b o t h h u m a n s a n d aliens. His genetic heritage b l e n d s differences. In a sweet scene, h e sees three of his mothers. S t i m p s o n k n o w s h e r c u r r i c u l u m will be criticized. But she is lightheartedly defiant: "If m y c u r r i c u l u m seems to yowl like a beast of relativ­ ism, I find this cause for cheer. . . . My reconstructive project affirms that relativism is n o beast b u t a g o o n that will n u r t u r e a m o r e democratic, a m o r e culturally literate, a n d yes, a brainier university." W e can let Stimpson's talk of a "coherent curriculum" a n d "brainier university" fall of its o w n weight. O t h e r transformationists have not been so forthcoming a b o u t w h e r e they are taking the a c a d e m y — a n d w e can see w h y . As it h a p p e n s , I have m e t Ms. Stimpson at several recent confer­ ences a n d found h e r to b e m o r e m o d e r a t e a n d sensible than she appears to have b e e n in 1 9 8 8 . Nevertheless, her views of the eighties cast light on the p r e d i c a m e n t of universities in the nineties. Many courses of the kind Stimpson d r e a m e d of are n o w in place, a n d the campaign against "patriar­ chal" culture a n d scholarship is u n a b a t e d .

TRANSFORMING

THE

ACADEMY

71

It is u n d e r s t a n d a b l e that the transformationists are m o r e lyrical t h a n informative a b o u t w h a t the transformed a c a d e m y will actually look like a n d w h a t its c u r r i c u l u m will be. There is n o lack of p r o g r a m m a t i c discus­ sion a b o u t "subjectivity," "lateral thinking," "concreteness," "inclusiveness," "relatedness," a n d the i m p o r t a n c e of interdisciplinary studies as features of a feminist reconceptualization of higher learning. There is also lots of metaphorical talk a b o u t w i n d o w s a n d mirrors a n d voices. But the description of the n e w c u r r i c u l u m is silent o n crucial matters. W h a t , for example, is s u p p o s e d to b e the fate of s u c h suspect "first p h a s e , vertical, male" subjects as m a t h , logic, or analytical philosophy? Linda Gardiner, editor of the Women's Review of Books, w h i c h is h o u s e d in the Wellesley College Center for Research o n W o m e n , w o n d e r s w h e t h e r W e s t e r n p h i l o s o p h y speaks for w o m e n at all. " W e m i g h t begin to question the i m p o r t of Descartes' stress o n logic a n d m a t h e m a t i c s as the ideal types of rationality, in a society in w h i c h only a tiny p e r c e n t a g e of people could realistically s p e n d time developing skills in those fields," she w r i t e s . Noting that the philosophical elite is biased in favor of the abstract, methodical, a n d universal, Gardiner suggests that a feminist philosophy w o u l d b e m o r e concrete a n d m o r e suspicious of logic a n d m e t h o d . " W h a t w o u l d a female logic b e like?" s h e asks, a n d answers that this w o u l d b e like asking w h a t female a s t r o n o m y or particle physics w o u l d be like. " W e c a n n o t imagine w h a t it w o u l d m e a n to have a 'female version' of t h e m . " For that, says Ms. Gardiner, w e s h o u l d first n e e d to develop different epistemologies. Reading Gardiner's spirited a r g u m e n t s for the thesis that classical p h i l o s o p h y is essentially a n d inveterately m a l e biased, one cannot avoid the impression that the feminist critic is m o r e ingenious at finding male bias in a field t h a n in p r o p o s i n g an intelligible alternative way to deal with its subject matter. 59

60

The gender feminist "critique" of the physical sciences, o n e of the busiest areas of feminist transformationist theory, is also rich in m e t a p h o r a n d p o o r in literal content. To b e sure, science does p r e s e n t s o m e g e n u i n e issues of concern to any feminist. Laboratories can b e as u n w e l c o m i n g to w o m e n as male locker r o o m s ; a lot still n e e d s to b e d o n e to m a k e the life of science m o r e hospitable to w o m e n . But equity feminists p a r t c o m p a n y with those w h o h o l d that science itself—its m e t h o d o l o g y , its rules of evidence, its concern for empirical g r o u n d i n g , its ideal of objectivity—is an expression of a "masculinist" a p p r o a c h to k n o w l e d g e . Indeed, the gender feminist doctrines are a distinct e m b a r r a s s m e n t a n d a threat to any w o m a n with aspirations to d o real science. Inevitably, gender feminist p h i l o s o p h e r s seek to find their ideas con­ firmed by e m i n e n t w o m e n scientists. Evelyn Fox Keller argues that N o b e l

72

W H O

STOLE

FEMINISM?

laureate Barbara McClintock's achievements in cell biology were m a d e possible because of her outsider status, w h i c h gave scope to her uniquely feminine a p p r o a c h . As a w o m a n of integrity, says Fox Keller, McClintock could n o t accept the "image of the scientist m o d e l e d on the patriarchal h u s b a n d . " This, according to Fox Keller, led McClintock to creative a n d radical redefinitions: " N a t u r e m u s t b e r e n a m e d as not female, or, at least, as n o t an alienated object. By the same token, the m i n d , if the female scientist is to have o n e , m u s t b e r e n a m e d as n o t necessarily male, a n d accordingly recast w i t h a m o r e inclusive subjectivity." But Professor McClintock herself does n o t accept Fox Keller's interpretation of her w o r k . As Fox Keller candidly acknowledges, "She [McClintock] w o u l d disclaim a n y analysis of h e r w o r k as a w o m a n ' s w o r k , as well as any suggestion that her views represent a w o m a n ' s perspective. To her, sci­ ence is n o t a matter of gender, either male or female; it is, o n the contrary, a place w h e r e (ideally at least) 'the matter of gender d r o p s away.' " Feminist critics have looked at the m e t a p h o r s of "male science" a n d found t h e m sexist. I recently h e a r d a feminist astronomer interviewed o n C N N say in all seriousness that sexist terminology like "the Big Bang Theory" is "off-putting to y o u n g w o m e n " w h o might otherwise b e inter­ ested in p u r s u i n g careers in h e r field. It is h a r d to believe that anyone w i t h a n intelligent interest in a s t r o n o m y w o u l d b e p u t off by a graphic description of a cosmic event. O t h e r critiques of science as masculinist are equally fatuous a n d scientifically fruitless. After asserting that "the warlike terminology of i m m u n o l o g y w h i c h focuses on 'competition,' 'in­ hibition,' a n d 'invasion' as major theories of h o w cells interact reflects a militaristic view of the w o r l d , " Sue Rosser, w h o offers w o r k s h o p s o n h o w to transform the biology curriculum, concedes that "a feminist critique has n o t yet p r o d u c e d theoretical changes in the area of cell b i o l o g y . " She does n o t tell u s h o w the "feminist critique" could lead to advances in biology, b u t she considers it obvious that it must: "It becomes evident that the inclusion of a feminist perspective leads to changes in models, experimental subjects, a n d interpretations of the data. These changes entail m o r e inclusive, enriched theories c o m p a r e d to the traditional, re­ strictive, unicausal t h e o r i e s . " 61

62

6 3

64

65

66

To s o m e , j u s t the p r o m i s e of a female perspective in the sciences seems e n o u g h . To d e m a n d m o r e seems churlish to them. Sandra Harding has m a d e feminist p h i l o s o p h y of science her specialty. Harding m a k e s it s o u n d as if merely articulating a feminist critique of male science is equivalent to having b r o k e n t h r o u g h to a feminist alternative: " W h e n w e began theorizing o u r experiences . . . w e k n e w o u r task w o u l d b e a diffi­ cult t h o u g h exciting one. But I d o u b t that in o u r wildest d r e a m s w e ever

TRANSFORMING

THE

ACADEMY

73

imagined w e w o u l d have to reinvent b o t h science a n d theorizing itself in order to m a k e sense of w o m e n ' s social e x p e r i e n c e . " Unfortunately, w e are n o t given even a vague idea of h o w h e r alleged b r e a k t h r o u g h m u s t n o w affect the s t u d y of the natural sciences; in particular, w e r e m a i n in the dark o n the question of w h a t a feminist scientific c u r r i c u l u m w o u l d look like a n d h o w it w o u l d lead to "reinventing science." As p h i l o s o p h e r of mathematics Margarita Levin dryly r e m a r k s , " O n e still w a n t s to k n o w w h e t h e r feminists' airplanes w o u l d stay airborne for feminist e n g i n e e r s . " 67

68

Chapter 4

New Epistemologies

S o m e g e n d e r feminists claim that because w o m e n have been o p ­ pressed they are better " k n o w e r s . " Feeling m o r e deeply, they see m o r e clearly a n d u n d e r s t a n d reality better. They have an "epistemic" advantage over m e n . Does being o p p r e s s e d really m a k e one m o r e knowledgeable or perceptive? T h e idea that adversity confers special insight is familiar e n o u g h . Literary critics often ascribe creativity to suffering, including suffering of racial discrimination or h o m o p h o b i a . But feminist philoso­ p h e r s have carried this idea m u c h further. They claim that oppressed g r o u p s enjoy privileged "epistemologies" or "different ways of k n o w i n g " that better enable t h e m to u n d e r s t a n d the world, not only socially b u t scientifically. According to " s t a n d p o i n t theory," as the theory of epistemic advantage is called, the o p p r e s s e d m a y m a k e better biologists, physicists, a n d p h i ­ l o s o p h e r s t h a n their oppressors. T h u s w e find the feminist theorist Hilary Rose saying that male scientists have been h a n d i c a p p e d by being m e n . A better science w o u l d b e based o n w o m e n ' s domestic experience a n d prac1

NEW

EPISTEMOLOGIES

75

2

tice. Professor Virginia Held offers h o p e that "a feminist s t a n d p o i n t w o u l d give us a quite different u n d e r s t a n d i n g of even physical reality." Conversely, those w h o are m o s t socially favored, the proverbial white, middle-class males, are in the worst epistemic position. W h a t d o m a i n s t r e a m p h i l o s o p h e r s m a k e of the idea of " s t a n d p o i n t theories"? Professor Susan Haack of the University of Miami is o n e of the most respected epistemologists in the country. She is also an equity fem­ inist. In D e c e m b e r 1 9 9 2 she participated in a s y m p o s i u m o n feminist p h i l o s o p h y at meetings of the American Philosophical Association. It was a u n i q u e event. For once, s o m e o n e outside the insular little w o r l d of gender feminism w a s asked to c o m m e n t o n gender feminist theories of knowledge. W a t c h i n g Professor Haack critique the "standpoint theorists" was a little like w a t c h i n g a chess g r a n d m a s t e r defeat all o p p o n e n t s in a simultaneous exhibition, blindfolded. Haack told the a u d i e n c e that she finds the idea of "female ways of k n o w i n g " as puzzling as the idea of a Republican epistemology or a senior citizens' epistemology. Some of h e r a r g u m e n t s are too technical to review here. I cite only a few of h e r criticisms: 3

4

I a m n o t convinced that there are any distinctively female "ways of k n o w i n g . " All any h u m a n being has to go on, in figuring o u t h o w things are, is his or h e r sensory a n d introspective experience, a n d the explanatory theorizing h e or she devises to a c c o m m o d a t e it; a n d differences in cognitive style, like differences in h a n d w r i t i n g , s e e m m o r e individual t h a n g e n d e r - d e t e r m i n e d . 5

She p o i n t e d o u t that theories based o n the idea that oppression o r deprivation results in a privileged s t a n d p o i n t are especially implausible; if they were right, the m o s t disadvantaged g r o u p s w o u l d p r o d u c e the best scientists. In fact, the oppressed a n d socially marginalized often have little access to the information a n d education n e e d e d to excel in science, w h i c h on the w h o l e p u t s t h e m at a serious "epistemic disadvantage." Professor Haack also observed that the female theorists w h o argue that oppression confers an advantage are n o t themselves oppressed. She asks: if o p p r e s ­ sion a n d poverty are indeed so advantageous, w h y d o so m a n y highly advantaged, middle-class w o m e n consider themselves so well situated "epistemically"? Ms. Haack identifies herself as a n "Old Feminist" w h o opposes the attempt "of the N e w Feminists to colonize philosophy." H e r reasons for rejecting feminist epistemologies were cogent a n d , to most of the profes-

76

W H O

STOLE

FEMINISM?

sional a u d i e n c e , clearly convincing. Unfortunately, her cool, sensible ad­ m o n i t i o n s are n o t likely to slow d o w n the campaign to p r o m o t e "women's ways of k n o w i n g . " T h e g e n d e r feminists' conviction, m o r e ideological than scientific, that they b e l o n g to a radically insightful v a n g u a r d that compares favorably w i t h the C o p e r n i c u s e s a n d Darwins of the past animates their revisionist theories of intellectual a n d artistic excellence a n d inspires their p r o g r a m to transform the k n o w l e d g e base. Their exultation contrasts with the deep reluctance of m o s t o t h e r academics to challenge the basic assumptions u n d e r l y i n g feminist theories of k n o w l e d g e a n d education. The confidence of the o n e a n d the trepidation of the other c o m b i n e to m a k e transformationism a powerfully effective m o v e m e n t that has so far proceeded u n ­ checked in the academy.

Yolanda Moses is the newly a p p o i n t e d president of City University of N e w York. She w a s formerly the chair of w o m e n ' s studies a n d provost at California State University at D o m i n g u e z Hills. Her anti-intellectual ideas m i g h t s e e m surprising to a n y o n e unfamiliar with the fashionable doctrine that extols the n e w "ways of k n o w i n g " while devaluing the traditional male E u r o p e a n a p p r o a c h to "knowing": "Institutions of higher education in the U n i t e d States are p r o d u c t s of W e s t e r n society in w h i c h masculine values like a n orientation t o w a r d achievement a n d objectivity are valued over cooperation, c o n n e c t e d n e s s , a n d subjectivity." In President Moses' view, the m a s c u l i n e e m p h a s i s o n achievement a n d objectivity is an obsta­ cle to progress! She also finds it deplorable that faculty m e m b e r s ' research has b e e n valued above their c o m m u n i t y service. "That will have to change if cultural pluralism is to flourish." 6

7

Despite its influence, the g e n d e r feminist project of "transforming the k n o w l e d g e base" m u s t in the e n d p r o v e to b e a deep embarrassment to the feminist m o v e m e n t . As Susan Haack has p o i n t e d out, the belief in female "ways of k n o w i n g " is reminiscent of male chauvinist denigrations of w o m e n . T h o s e w h o p r o m o t e it a n d cheer it on find themselves cheering alongside those w h o have always held that w o m e n think differently from men. T h e transformationists are o u t to reconstruct o u r cultural a n d scientific heritage. Even if o n e believes that this badly needs doing (and I, for one, d o n o t ) , there is little reason to b e sanguine that the gender feminists are intellectually e q u i p p e d to d o it. Their belief in the superiority of "women's ways of k n o w i n g " fosters a sense of solidarity a n d cultural c o m m u n i t y that s e e m s to have allowed t h e m to overlook the fact that their doctrine

NEW

EPISTEMOLOGIES

77

tends to segregate w o m e n in a culture of their o w n , that it increases social divisiveness along g e n d e r lines, a n d that it m a y seriously w e a k e n the American academy. N o r does it w o r r y these feminists that their teaching allows insecure m e n once again to patronize a n d denigrate w o m e n as the naive sex that t h i n k s w i t h its heart, n o t with its head.

T h e early feminists of the First W a v e , fighting for equity a n d equal opportunities in politics a n d education, rejected all theories of male su­ periority. However, they were n o t t e m p t e d to retaliate against sexism b y m a k i n g u n f o u n d e d claims that w o m e n were superior to m e n . T h e y k n e w all too well the dangers of p r o m o t i n g divisive d o g m a s a b o u t male a n d female ways of k n o w i n g . They w e r e especially leery of being called m o r e intuitive, h e n c e less analytical, less "rational," than m e n . An event in the life of Elizabeth Cady Stanton, the great foremother of American feminism, illustrates the attitude that the First W a v e feminists h a d toward those w h o believed that w o m e n negotiated the w o r l d less with skeptical reason than with a trusting intuition. Stanton h a d discov­ ered that her four-day-old b a b y h a d a b e n t collarbone. T h e doctor placed a bandage on the s h o u l d e r a n d secured it by tying it to the child's wrist. Soon after h e left, Stanton noticed the child's h a n d was blue. She r e m o v e d the bandage a n d s u m m o n e d a second doctor. H e did m u c h the s a m e thing. Again the baby's fingers t u r n e d b l u e s o o n after the doctor left. Over the protests of the n u r s e , Ms. Stanton removed the b a n d a g e a s e c o n d time. She told the n u r s e , " W h a t w e w a n t is a little pressure o n that b o n e ; that is w h a t b o t h of those m e n have aimed at. H o w can w e get it w i t h o u t involving the a r m , is the q u e s t i o n . " Ms. Stanton t h e n soaked strips of linen in a solution of water a n d arnica a n d w r a p p e d t h e m a r o u n d the baby "like a pair of s u s p e n d e r s over the shoulder, crossing t h e m b o t h in front a n d b e h i n d , p i n n i n g the e n d s to the diaper." This provided the necessary pressure w i t h o u t s t o p p i n g the child's circulation, a n d the b a b y soon recovered. 8

W h e n the doctors returned, Ms. Stanton told t h e m h o w i n a d e q u a t e their bandages h a d b e e n a n d h o w she h a d solved the p r o b l e m . They smiled knowingly at o n e another. "Well after all, a m o t h e r ' s instinct is better than a m a n ' s reason," o n e r e m a r k e d . " T h a n k you, gentlemen," Stanton replied, "there was n o instinct a b o u t it. I did s o m e h a r d t h i n k i n g before I saw h o w I could get pressure o n the s h o u l d e r w i t h o u t i m p e d i n g the circulation, as you d i d . " 9

78

W H O

STOLE

FEMINISM?

P r o m o t i n g a gynocentric critique of knowledge is u n w o r t h y of a dig­ nified feminism. It is also educationally harmful. W e hear a lot a b o u t h o w poorly o u r entering college s t u d e n t s c o m p a r e with American students of past decades or w i t h their contemporaries in foreign countries. W h e n respect for learning a n d academic achievement is at such a low point, w h y s h o u l d feminist academics b e contributing to it? Creating a climate of g e n d e r mistrust of received knowledge only a d d s to the r a m p a n t anti-intellectualism of o u r troubled culture. There is a m o r e constructive way, a n d it is the way of the classical equity feminist w h o asks for w o m e n "a fair field a n d n o favors" in joining m e n to create the culture of the future. My o w n "equity feminist" creed is eloquently articulated b y Iris M u r d o c h . M u r d o c h still believes in a "culture of h u ­ manity," a n d h e r w a r n i n g s a b o u t the dangers of the divisive, meanspirited alternative are timely. M e n "created c u l t u r e " because they were free to d o so, a n d w o m e n w e r e treated as inferior a n d m a d e to believe that they were. N o w free w o m e n m u s t j o i n in the h u m a n w o r l d of w o r k a n d creation on a n equal footing a n d b e everywhere in art, science, business, poli­ tics, etc. . . . However, to lay claim, in this battle, to female ethics, female criticism, female k n o w l e d g e . . . is to set u p a n e w female ghetto. (Chauvinist males s h o u l d b e delighted by the move . . .) " W o m e n ' s Studies" can m e a n that w o m e n are led to read mediocre or p e r i p h e r a l b o o k s by w o m e n rather than the great b o o k s of h u ­ m a n i t y in general. . . . It is a dead end, in danger of simply separat­ ing w o m e n from the m a i n s t r e a m thinking of the h u m a n race. Such cults can also waste the time of y o u n g people w h o may b e reading all the latest b o o k s o n feminism instead of studying the difficult a n d i m p o r t a n t things that belong to the culture of h u m a n i t y [her em­ phases]. 10

Transformationism is galvanizing, a n d it has proved to be profitable. N o o n e is offering m o n e y for a w o r k s h o p that w o u l d teach its participants that m e n a n d w o m e n are n o t all that different, that the traditional stan­ d a r d s are better left u n t r a n s f o r m e d b y the ideologues w h o believe in " w o m e n - c e n t e r e d n e s s , " or that s t u d e n t s are better off learning a universal c u r r i c u l u m that is n o t gender-divisive. T h e thoughts of Susan Haack, Iris M u r d o c h , a n d a handful of critics of transformationism d o not lend them­ selves to the w o r k s h o p m o d e : they c a n n o t b e expressed as a "five-phase theory" that l e n d s itself so neatly to w o r k s h o p s a n d retreats. It is almost impossible to get funding to i m p l e m e n t ideas that favor moderate reform

NEW

EPISTEMOLOGIES

79

rather than exciting C o p e r n i c a n transformations. By s u p p o r t i n g a n d p r o ­ moting transformationism, n o t only d o school administrators build u p their résumés, they get to feel they are participating in the educational equivalent of the s t o r m i n g of the Bastille. Equity feminists have n o t h i n g that exciting to offer. Transformationists d o n o t invite criticism or intellectual scrutiny of their a s s u m p t i o n s , a n d it is n o t likely that the transformation m o v e m e n t will be checked by fair a n d o p e n debate. W o m e n ' s conferences t e n d to be rallies of the faithful. Critics w h o d o v e n t u r e d o u b t s a b o u t the value of the transformationist m o v e m e n t are dismissed as "right-wing extremists," a n d their a r g u m e n t s are ignored. T h e usual system of checks a n d balances by m e a n s of p e e r review seems to have fallen apart. Yet although the transformationists have every reason to celebrate their m a n y successes, they have recently experienced a setback from an u n e x ­ pected quarter. W h e n Mcintosh, Minnich, a n d their followers d e m a n d e d that the oppressive E u r o p e a n , white, male culture being taught in the schools be radically transformed, they h a d n o t imagined that a n y o n e could look u p o n them as oppressors. T h e transformationist leaders are not m e n , b u t they are white, they are "European," they are middle-class. Minority w o m e n have b e g u n to d e n y that the leaders of the w o m e n ' s m o v e m e n t have a n y right to speak for t h e m . Most m e m b e r s of the w o m e n of color caucus boycotted the 1992 Austin National W o m e n ' s Studies Conference I a t t e n d e d for its failure to recognize a n d respect their political identity. T h e slighted g r o u p sent the conferees an African-American w o m ­ en's quilt m a d e from dashiki fabrics, as b o t h a r e p r i m a n d a n d a "healing gesture." T h e assembled w h i t e feminists sat before it in resentful b u t guilty silence. In the g a m e of moral o n e - u p m a n s h i p that g e n d e r feminists are so good at, they h a d b e e n outquilted, as it were, by a m o r e marginal­ ized constituency. Clearly any n u m b e r of minority g r o u p s can play the victimology game, a n d almost all could play it far m o r e plausibly t h a n the socially well-positioned Heilbruns, Mclntoshes, a n d Minniches. An obvious recourse is to deflect criticism b y "confessing" at the outset one's privileged status. T w o feminist editors of Feminism, a n e w w o m e n ' s studies textbook, i n t r o d u c e themselves as follows: " W e " are Robyn a n d Diane; w e speak as w h i t e middle-class hetero­ sexual American feminist academics in o u r early t h i r t i e s — t o cover a n u m b e r of the categories feminist criticism has lately been e m p h a ­ sizing as significant to one's reading a n d speaking position: race, class, sexual orientation, nationality, political positioning, educa­ tion level, a n d age. Colleagues at the University of V e r m o n t since

80

W H O

STOLE

FEMINISM?

1 9 8 9 , w e t w o have found that w e share passionate interests in fiction, feminism, a n d q u i l t m a k i n g . 11

M o r e a n d m o r e frequently, the g e n d e r feminists w h o r u n the w o m e n ' s centers, the w o r k s h o p s , the transformationist projects, a n d the various w o m e n ' s conferences are finding themselves accused of being elitist a n d m e m b e r s of o p p r e s s o r g r o u p s . In the s p r i n g of 1 9 9 3 , twenty-five h u n d r e d w o m e n gathered in Albu­ q u e r q u e , N e w Mexico, for a spiritual conference organized by the Catho­ lic feminist " W o m e n - C h u r c h " m o v e m e n t . Feminist inclusiveness was the o r d e r of the day, a n d so all goddesses were h o n o r e d equally—from Hera, Artemis, a n d Isis to Mary of the Christian t r a d i t i o n . T h e participants h a d b e e n told to b r i n g d r u m s , a n d all events were accompanied by d r u m beating. This t h e m a t i c ritual was i n t e n d e d as a way of h o n o r i n g Native Americans. But it w a s n o t well received. Peter Steinfels of the New York Times w a s there, a n d h e r e p o r t e d that a "traditional American Indian Pipe C e r e m o n y w a s nearly d r o w n e d o u t by the d r u m m i n g of goddess worship­ ers w h o w e r e 'raising p o w e r ' n o t far away in the A l b u q u e r q u e Convention C e n t e r . " Soon, w o r d c a m e that the d r u m m i n g of the white w o m e n h a d offended the Native A m e r i c a n w o m e n . 12

13

T h a t practice [of d r u m - b e a t i n g ] w a s implicitly questioned w h e n a general session o n spirituality t u r n e d into a p r o b i n g discussion of h o w religious voyagers from d o m i n a n t cultures e n h a n c e their spiri­ tual experience b y expropriating exotic practices from the religions of minorities, j u s t as well-to-do tourists decorate themselves a n d their h o u s e s w i t h the crafts a n d art of indigenous people. . . . Amid growing c o m p l a i n t s from several g r o u p s a b o u t latent racism in the c o n f e r e n c e — t h e organizers requested that, out of sympathy for those w h o h a d b e e n offended, the d r u m s n o t b e played. So t h e w h i t e w o m e n g o d d e s s w o r s h i p e r s could not beat their d r u m s , a n d even their w e l l - k n o w n predilection for peasant jewelry a n d ethnic clothing w a s p u t in question. T h e leaders a n d theorists of academic feminism have p r u d e n t l y sought to w a r d off m i n o r i t y c e n s u r e by placing w o m e n ' s issues u n d e r the b r o a d a n d p o p u l a r umbrella of multiculturalism. President Moses took that tack w h e n s h e castigated males w h o value objectivity a n d achievement above c o m m u n i t y service, w a r n i n g h e r City University faculty that such values w e r e inconsistent w i t h a n e m p h a s i s o n "cultural pluralism." But "cultural pluralism" h a s m a n y sides, each w i t h its o w n sharp edge. The well-

NEW

EPISTEMOLOGIES

81

educated, white, middle-class w o m e n w h o have for the past two decades been d e n o u n c i n g m e n for treating t h e m as "the O t h e r " n o w find t h e m ­ selves d e n o u n c e d for having marginalized a n d silenced Native American w o m e n , Hispanic w o m e n , disabled w o m e n , a n d other g r o u p s , all of w h o m claim to b e victims in a c o m p l e x ecology of d o m i n a t i o n a n d s u b ­ jugation. Even the beloved "click experience" has b e c o m e a s y m b o l of white, middle-class privilege. T w o African-American feminists, Barbara Smith a n d Beverly Smith, have written an article u n m a s k i n g the elitism of w o m e n w h o describe the "click" as "an experience that m a k e s you realize your oppression as a w o m a n . " They p o i n t out that clicks are for those w h o are relatively privileged. Minorities, w h e t h e r male or female, d o n o t experience them: "The day-to-day i m m e d i a c y of violence a n d oppression" suffices well e n o u g h to r e m i n d t h e m of their condition. The feminist leaders a n d theorists are s o m e w h a t discomfited b y these unexpected reproaches. But it w o u l d b e a mistake to u n d e r e s t i m a t e the self-assurance a n d resolve of the g e n d e r feminists. They are n o t a b o u t to relinquish their d o m i n a n c e , n o t even to other w o m e n w h o s e b o n a fides as victims are greater than their o w n . The typical gathering of g e n d e r feminist academics illustrates the u n ­ easy a n d s o m e w h a t unstable c o m p r o m i s e that has b e e n struck. T h e au­ dience consists largely of the white, middle-class w o m e n w h o are the mainstays of academic feminism. O n the other h a n d , minority w o m e n are given strong representation in the panels a n d symposia, a n d the rhetoric of feminist transformation is given a multicultural cast. The April 1 9 9 3 Parsippany, N e w Jersey, conference o n transforming the curriculum that I discussed in chapter 3 is a case in point. All the leading gender feminist transformationists were there: Catharine Stimp­ son, Annette Kolodny, the Schuster a n d Van Dyne team, Elizabeth Min­ nich, Beverly Guy-Sheftall, Sandra Harding, a n d , of course, the ubiquitous Peggy M c i n t o s h . Professor Paula Rothenberg, the conference m o d e r a t o r a n d selfdescribed "Marxist-feminist," w e l c o m e d us a n d invited us to j o i n her "to imagine together a c u r r i c u l u m for the next century." T h e m o o d was generally upbeat, b u t o n e presenter after a n o t h e r w a r n e d of i m p e n d i n g backlash. Rothenberg cautioned the audience to be suspicious of the Clinton administration's a n n o u n c e d c o m m i t m e n t to diversity; she called it an "ethnic foods a n d fiestas" version of inclusiveness. Annette Kolodny explained h o w her position as d e a n of h u m a n i t i e s at the University of Arizona h a d given her the m e a n s to p r o m o t e transfor­ mationist changes there. Kolodny h a d been instrumental in i n t r o d u c i n g 1 4

15

82

W H O

STOLE

FEMINISM?

" n e w p r o m o t i o n a n d t e n u r e " proposals that reward a n d protect transfor­ mationist w o r k at the University of Arizona. Kolodny also reported on the transformation retreats w h e r e "outside facilitators" are b r o u g h t in to h e l p selected faculty a n d administrators "rethink h o w they teach." She hailed the N e w Jersey Project as the inspiration for Arizona. "Thank you, Paula!" she cried. A d i s c o r d a n t n o t e was i n t r o d u c e d by Beverly Guy-Sheftall, director of the W o m e n ' s Research Center at Spelman College, w h o attacked Kolodny's charts. " W h a t a b o u t those of us w h o are w o m e n a n d m e m b e r s of a minority? W h i c h c h a r t includes us?" Ms. Guy-Sheftall conceded that identifying a c o m m o n black perspective presented difficulties. Some Afrocentrists, for example, h o l d views that conflict with those of the black lesbian m o v e m e n t . W h o s e p o i n t of view is to c o u n t as representative? Ms. Guy-Sheftall s p o k e of the issue of fragmented representation as a "problematized" area. Calling a subject "problematized" often serves to p a p e r over the embarrassing a n d t o u c h y questions it raises; this is especially true of q u e s t i o n s a b o u t the politics of g r o u p identity. Like several o t h e r speakers w h o t o u c h e d o n the future of curricular transformation, Guy-Sheftall confessed she is "still not sure we have a clue a b o u t w h a t this really m e a n s as w e a p p r o a c h the twenty-first cen­ tury." But h e r d o u b t s d i d n o t d a m p e n her enthusiasm for the transfor­ m a t i o n m o v e m e n t or h e r determination to help it get m o r e funding. Indeed, Guy-Sheftall, a consultant to the Ford Foundation, has been advising the foundation that s u p p o r t for w o m e n ' s studies a n d transfor­ m a t i o n w o r k s h o u l d intensify d u r i n g this paradoxical p e r i o d . Professor R o t h e n b e r g i n t r o d u c e d the N e w Jersey chancellor of higher education, E d w a r d Goldberg, as "the Fairy G o d m o t h e r of the N e w Jersey Project." Middle-aged a n d balding, sporting a suit a n d tie a n d a p a u n c h , Goldberg l o o k e d as t h o u g h h e w o u l d b e m o r e at h o m e at a conference of Shriners or Legionnaires. H e s p o k e pridefully of the millions of dollars that N e w Jersey h a d p u t into the C u r r i c u l u m Transformation Project a n d expressed h o p e that o t h e r states w o u l d soon follow suit. For him, curric­ u l u m transformation is a matter of basic decency. Curriculum transfor­ m a t i o n , h e a n n o u n c e d , is "a vindication of the simple a n d honest concept that scholarship s h o u l d reflect contributions of all." W h e n I heard Mr. Goldberg say this, it confirmed m y belief that m a n y well-meaning govern­ m e n t officials d o n o t u n d e r s t a n d the implications of the feminist d e m a n d for a m o r e w o m a n - c e n t e r e d c u r r i c u l u m . Goldberg is n o t a "gynocrat"; h e is p r o b a b l y a n old-fashioned equity feminist w h o wants a fair deal for w o m e n in education. Apparently h e did n o t see that beneath the charges of sexism a n d g e n d e r unfairness is an illiberal, irrational, a n d anti-intel16

NEW

EPISTEMOLOGIES

83

lectual p r o g r a m that is a threat to everything h e probably believes in: American democracy, liberal education, academic freedom, a n d the k i n d of mainstream feminism that has gained w o m e n near-equality in Ameri­ can society.

Did Goldberg stay long e n o u g h to appreciate w h a t an u n u s u a l gather­ ing of academics this was? W a s h e surprised by an academic audience in which the a t m o s p h e r e of mass agreement a n d self-congratulation was almost total? Did h e c o u n t the n u m b e r of times the leading transforma­ tionists a d m i t t e d they h a d no idea what they were doing? H a d h e any idea of the n u m b e r of w o r k s h o p s o n t h o r n y topics like "Resistance in the Classroom" or "Anti-Oppression M e t h o d s of Teaching"? I w o n d e r e d w h a t he w o u l d have m a d e of the p a c k e d afternoon session o n transforming the science c u r r i c u l u m in w h i c h Sandra H a r d i n g discussed h o w science was part of a discredited "bourgeois" Christian legacy practically indistin­ guishable from imperialism, its cognitive core "tainted by sexism a n d racism." Richard Bernstein of the New York Times a t t e n d e d the Parsippany con­ ference. W h e n I asked h i m w h a t h e t h o u g h t of Harding's presentation h e said that her thesis was absurd: if W e s t e r n science is repressive a n d elitist a n d part of a bourgeois Christian legacy, w h y are the Japanese a n d the Chinese so good at it? Bernstein, w h o h a d spent several years in China as Time magazine's b u r e a u chief, a n d w h o has written a wonderful b o o k on China, told m e that t h r o u g h o u t the twentieth century Chinese reformers have h a d great respect for W e s t e r n science as a progressive force. "Science a n d Democracy" was the slogan of the celebrated May 4 t h M o v e m e n t between 1915 a n d 1918. Chinese reformers saw W e s t e r n science as a powerful w e a p o n against the authoritarianism a n d superstition that w e r e the b u l w a r k of the imperial system. Neither Bernstein n o r I v e n t u r e d a criticism of Ms. Harding's views. W e were b o t h very m u c h aware that it w o u l d have b e e n exceedingly i n d e c o r o u s for a n y o n e to raise objections. This was a gathering of "connected knowers": h a r d questions from "sep­ arate k n o w e r s " were decidedly u n w e l c o m e . Ronald Takaki, the Berkeley expert on ethnic studies, was easily the most p o p u l a r figure at the Parsippany gathering, a n d n o t least because his presence conferred on the feminist transformation projects the cachet of a multicultural m o v e m e n t . G e n d e r feminists have found it is wise to ally themselves with m e n a n d w o m e n of n o n - E u r o p e a n descent w h o are critical of W e s t e r n culture for its "Eurocentrism." A m o r e general offen­ sive on W e s t e r n "Eurocentric" culture (created by a n d controlled by

84

W H O

STOLE

FEMINISM?

"bourgeois w h i t e males of E u r o p e a n descent") is then prosecuted u n d e r the b a n n e r s of "cultural pluralism," "inclusiveness," a n d "diversity." Fem­ inist leaders have eagerly e m b r a c e d these causes partly to deflect attention from the largely white, middle-class character of their o w n m o v e m e n t a n d partly to camouflage the divisive m i s a n d r i s m that inspires t h e m b u t is offp u t t i n g to others. T h e propitiatory strategy of placing their radical fem­ inism u n d e r the b a n n e r of "inclusiveness" has also been successful in an internal respect: it has given m a n y feminist activists the feeling that they are p a r t of a w i d e r struggle for social justice. Finally, the call for "inclu­ siveness" usefully diverts attention from the uncomfortable b u t u n d e n i ­ able fact that the feminists are the ones getting most of the money, the professorships, a n d the well-paid (but vaguely defined) jobs inside the b u r g e o n i n g n e w victim/bias industry. Takaki began b y recognizing that n o o n e seemed to k n o w exactly w h a t a transformed c u r r i c u l u m w o u l d look like. A n d he asked, " H o w d o we d o it?" " H o w d o w e conceptualize it?" He advised the assembled gender feminists to listen carefully to his lecture because he was going to s h o w t h e m w h a t a transformationist lecture actually looks like. "I will d o it! I will practice it," h e said. H e told u s a b o u t the m i s u n d e r s t o o d a n d alienated Chinese railroad w o r k e r s in California, a n d a b o u t the exploited a n d denigrated Irish fac­ tory girls in Lowell, Massachusetts, in the nineteenth century, mixing his facts w i t h r e m a r k s a b o u t British colonialism a n d the O p i u m War. He read us s o m e telegrams sent b y a y o u n g Chinese railroad w o r k e r to some male friends urging t h e m to h e l p h i m in his plans to marry a y o u n g Chinese w o m a n . Takaki explained that h e studied telegrams because the Chinese left few d o c u m e n t s for study. T h e t e l e g r a m s — w h i c h Takaki called "texts" — r e v e a l e d the powerlessness of the prospective Chinese bride. (It seemed to m e they revealed m u c h a b o u t Chinese immigrant attitudes toward w o m e n that reflected o n the status of w o m e n in China, a point Takaki neglected to make.) Takaki u r g e d the audience to listen to the silences. T h e silence of the Irish factory w o r k e r s , the silence of the Chinese immi­ grants. T h e silence of the bride. T h e silence of millions of aliens w h o are a p a r t of American history yet rarely, if ever, figure in the narrative. "Blame the historians!" h e cried. He singled out Oscar Handlin a n d A r t h u r Schlesinger, Jr., b o t h Pulitzer Prize historians, for special censure. Few in the c r o w d s e e m e d to k n o w m u c h a b o u t Handlin's seminal writ­ ings o n American history. More recognized Schlesinger, w h o is a liberal D e m o c r a t b u t a critic of m u c h of w h a t passes u n d e r the b a n n e r of multiculturalism, a n d they hissed a n d b o o e d at the m e n t i o n of his name. Takaki attacked H a n d l i n ' s The Uprooted a n d Schlesinger's The Age of Jack-

NEW

EPISTEMOLOGIES

85

son on the g r o u n d that b o t h "completely ignored" the Chinese, the Cher­ okee Indians, a n d the African-Americans. Takaki did n o t tell the a u d i e n c e of nonhistorians that the b o o k s were written in 1 9 4 1 a n d 1 9 4 5 , respec­ tively. The Harvard historian Stephan T h e r n s t r o m , editor of the award-win­ ning Harvard Encyclopedia of American Ethnic Groups a n d the a u t h o r of n u m e r o u s b o o k s a n d articles o n ethnic history, told m e that at the time Handlin a n d Schlesinger w r o t e their b o o k s , few historians addressed race, class, or g e n d e r issues. In recent decades, research o n i m m i g r a n t g r o u p s — C h i n e s e , Jewish, a n d especially Irish factory w o r k e r s — h a s been very m u c h in vogue. " N o w w e t h i n k of n o t h i n g else," said T h e r n s t r o m . Ethnic studies are thriving. African-American history a n d Native American his­ tory are n o w respected a n d established fields w i t h recognized experts a n d classics. Takaki was attacking a straw m a n . As a p o i n t of fact, Handlin's The Uprooted portrays the archetypal patterns a n d configurations of i m m i g r a n t experience, a n d it is still a classic. H a n d l i n is n o w in his late seventies, a n d m a n y consider h i m to be a m o n g the greatest American historians of this century. I called h i m to get his reaction to Takaki's complaints. "The w h o l e attack is silly," h e said. "And too b a d h e did n o t d o his h o m e w o r k . In 1954 I w r o t e a b o o k , The American People, w h i c h does give an account of the Asian i m m i g r a n t experience . . . b u t w h a t can you d o ? " I h a d a look at The American People a n d found that H a n d l i n does indeed give attention to the Asian experience at the t u r n of the century. He describes n o t only the loneliness of the Chinese b u t also their re­ sourcefulness. H e also considered the effects of the paucity of females o n the immigrants a n d of the racism they were subject to, topics Takaki discussed as if for the first time in history. I recently a p p e a r e d with Mr. Takaki o n a local (Boston) PBS discussion panel o n m u l t i c u l t u r a l i s m . H e was c h a r m i n g a n d personable, a n d I joined the Parsippany crowd in liking h i m . W h i l e w e were waiting for the s h o w to begin, I asked h i m w h y h e h a d n o t given Mr. H a n d l i n credit for his treatment of Asian-Americans in the 1954 book. " W h a t b o o k is that?" h e asked. Takaki's N e w Jersey talk was billed as a transformationist lecture that was to s h o w h o w the n e w inclusive learning h a n d l e s the sensitive t h e m e s of the dispossessed. T h e success of the talk d e p e n d e d o n the a u d i e n c e being completely u n a w a r e n o t only of Handlin's w o r k b u t of thirty years of American social history. But success was assured. T h e conference h a d not invited a single p e r s o n w h o could possibly b e expected to challenge anything being said by any presenter. 17

86

W H O

STOLE

FEMINISM?

Professor T h e r n s t r o m , for example, was very surprised to hear that Takaki s p o k e a b o u t the Irish factory girls of Lowell, Massachusetts, as "silenced": they are in fact a m o n g the m o s t studied g r o u p s in American social history. But n o o n e remotely like Professor T h e r n s t r o m h a d been invited. T h e spring issue of the j o u r n a l Transformations h a d been distributed at the registration desk. Inside, the editor, Sylvia Baer, c o m p a r e d the uni­ versity c u r r i c u l u m to a dilapidated two-hundred-year-old house she was helping to renovate: " W e can all h e l p each other scrape a n d paint a n d design a n d build o u r c u r r i c u l u m s . It's h a r d work, all this renovation, a n d s o m e t i m e s the decisions are r i s k y — b u t look at the glorious results. . . . Together w e can d o this. I invite you to help with the planning, the building, a n d the singing a n d d a n c i n g . " T h e Parsippany a u d i e n c e , w h i c h consisted almost exclusively of white American middle-class females, was in fact thrilled by Takaki's "renova­ tions." Paula R o t h e n b e r g a n d Annette Kolodny were beaming t h r o u g h o u t the talk, a n d they a p p l a u d e d it wildly. Takaki was the topic of conversa­ tion for the n e x t t w o days. By providing a vivid example of w h a t a transformationist a p p r o a c h could d o , h e h a d helped t h e m all "to imagine together a c u r r i c u l u m for the next century." He h a d said h e w o u l d d o it, a n d h e did. A n exhilarating feeling of momentousness routinely surfaces at gender feminist gatherings. Elizabeth Minnich is a m o n g those w h o invoke Co­ p e r n i c u s a n d Darwin to give u s an idea of the vital importance of w h a t the feminist theorists have discovered. She a n d several other transforma­ tionists took p a r t in a p a n e l discussion called "Transforming the Knowl­ edge Base" in W a s h i n g t o n , D.C., in February 1989. T h e Ford-funded National C o u n c i l of Research o n W o m e n published the proceedings a n d r e p o r t e d the m o o d : "There w a s a palpable sense of m a k i n g history in the r o o m as w e c o n c l u d e d o u r d i s c u s s i o n s . " But m a k i n g history a n d contributing to progress are not necessarily the same. It is in fact t r u e that the transformationists are having a significant effect o n American education. They are imposing a n a r r o w political agenda, diluting traditional scholarly standards, a n d using u p scarce re­ sources. T h e y are d o i n g these things in the n a m e of a transformation project they themselves d o n o t seem fully to c o m p r e h e n d . 18

19

Chapter 5

The Feminist Classroom

The exhilaration of feeling themselves in the v a n g u a r d of a n e w con­ sciousness infuses feminist pedagogues with a doctrinal fervor u n i q u e in the academy. Here is h o w five professors from the University of Massa­ chusetts describe the feminist classroom: The feminist classroom is the place to use w h a t w e k n o w as w o m e n to appropriate a n d transform, totally, a d o m a i n w h i c h has b e e n men's. . . . Let us w e l c o m e the intrusion/infusion of e m o t i o n a l i t y — love, rage, anxiety, e r o t i c i s m — i n t o intellect as a step toward healing the fragmentation capitalism a n d patriarchy have d e m a n d e d from us. 1

Women: A Feminist Perspective is said to b e the best-selling w o m e n ' s studies textbook of all time. T h e first selection, "Sexual Terrorism" by Carole J. Sheffield, is a g o o d example of h o w the feminist classroom can "infuse" anxiety a n d rage. Ms. Sheffield describes an "ordinary" event that

88

W H O

STOLE

FEMINISM?

took place early o n e evening w h e n she was alone in a Laundromat: "The l a u n d r o m a t was brightly lit; a n d m y car was the only one in the lot. A n y o n e passing b y could readily see that I was alone a n d isolated. Know­ ing that rape is a crime of o p p o r t u n i t y , I became terrified." Ms. Sheffield left h e r l a u n d r y in the w a s h e r a n d d a s h e d back to her car, sitting in it w i t h the d o o r s locked a n d the w i n d o w s u p . " W h e n the w a s h was com­ pleted, I d a s h e d in, t h r e w the clothes into the drier, a n d ran back out to m y car. W h e n the clothes w e r e dry, I tossed t h e m recklessly into the basket a n d h u r r i e d l y d r o v e away to fold t h e m in the security of m y h o m e . A l t h o u g h I w a s n o t victimized in a direct, physical way or by objective or m e a s u r a b l e s t a n d a r d s , I felt victimized. It was, for m e , a terrifying expe­ rience." At h o m e , h e r terror subsides a n d turns to anger: "Mostly I was angry at being unfree: a hostage of a culture that, for the most part, encourages violence against females, instructs m e n in the methodology of sexual violence, a n d provides t h e m w i t h ready justification for their vio­ lence. . . . Following m y experience at the Laundromat, I talked with m y students about terrorization." 2

Any course (be it o n Baroque art, English composition, or French d r a m a ) can b e t a u g h t in this " w o m e n - c e n t e r e d " way. C o m m i t t e d instruc­ tors s p e a k of their "feminist classrooms" as "liberated zones" or "safe spaces" w h e r e "silenced w o m e n " will b e free for the first time to speak o u t in a secure gynocentric a m b i e n c e . This is a pedagogy that aims above all to teach the s t u d e n t to u n m a s k the inimical workings of the patriarchy. W e get a g o o d idea of w h a t s t u d e n t s experience in the feminist class­ r o o m b y l o o k i n g at a " m o d e l " i n t r o d u c t o r y w o m e n ' s studies course de­ veloped by twelve Rutgers University professors. O n e of the stated goals of the course is to "challenge a n d change the social institutions a n d practices that create a n d p e r p e t u a t e systems of oppression." Forty percent of the s t u d e n t ' s g r a d e is to c o m e from: 3

1. p e r f o r m i n g s o m e " o u t r a g e o u s " a n d "liberating" act outside of class a n d t h e n sharing feelings a n d reactions with the class; 2. k e e p i n g a j o u r n a l of "narratives of personal experience, expressions of e m o t i o n , d r e a m a c c o u n t s , poetry, doodles, etc."; a n d 3 . forming small in-class consciousness-raising groups. T h e professors in the Rutgers course h a n d out a list of m a n d a t o r y classroom " g r o u n d rules." According to o n e of these rules, students agree to "create a safe a t m o s p h e r e for o p e n discussion. If m e m b e r s of the class wish to m a k e c o m m e n t s that they d o n o t w a n t repeated outside the classroom, they can preface their r e m a r k s with a request a n d the class

THE

FEMINIST

CLASSROOM

89

will agree n o t to repeat the r e m a r k s . " This confidentiality rule is critical in classes in w h i c h the instructor encourages s t u d e n t s to reveal w h e t h e r a family m e m b e r , boyfriend, or stranger has molested, raped, battered, or otherwise victimized t h e m . The general effect of feminist pedagogy is described in a 1990 "Report to the Professions" b y five w o m e n ' s studies leaders: W o m e n ' s studies s t u d e n t s typically u n d e r g o a p r o f o u n d transfor­ mation as they claim m o r e knowledge. They pass t h r o u g h an iden­ tifiable series of m o m e n t s of recognition. . . . Such insights are followed b y m o m e n t s of e m p o w e r m e n t in w h i c h patriarchal frame­ w o r k s a n d p e r c e p t i o n s are modified, redefined, or rejected alto­ gether a n d replaced by a newly emerging view of the self a n d society. T h e difficulty a n d complexity of this process . . . c a n n o t b e overemphasized. . . . Breaking w h a t feminist writer Tillie Olsen calls the "habits of a lifetime" is n o trivial matter. It is a c c o m p a n i e d by the full range of h u m a n resistance, b y continual attraction a n d re­ pulsion, denial a n d recognition. 4

Professor Susan Arpad, w h o has b e e n teaching w o m e n ' s studies courses at California State University at Fresno for almost fifteen years, describes the powerful effect the courses have o n b o t h s t u d e n t a n d teacher: It is a radical change, questioning the fundamental n a t u r e of every­ thing they k n o w . . . . At its worst, it can lead to a k i n d of psycholog­ ical b r e a k d o w n . At its best, it necessitates a p e r i o d of adjustment. . . . O n a daily basis, I talk to s t u d e n t s a n d colleagues w h o are e u p h o r i c as a result of their change of consciousness. . . . I also talk to other s t u d e n t s a n d colleagues w h o are stuck in a stage of anger or despair. 5

There are s o m e solid scholarly courses offered by w o m e n ' s studies programs, w h e r e the goal is simply to teach subjects like w o m e n ' s p o e t r y or w o m e n ' s history in a nonrevisionist way. Unfortunately s u c h courses are n o t the n o r m . In their report, the w o m e n ' s studies officers i n c l u d e d thirty-seven s a m p l e syllabi, of w h i c h the Rutgers " m o d e l syllabus" w a s given p r i d e of place. Buried a m o n g the thirty-seven syllabi were two that were relatively free of ideology a n d pedagogical gimmicks. O n e of these was a course called "Southern W o m e n : Black a n d W h i t e " given by Professors Susan T u s h a n d Virginia Gould (the report does n o t say w h e r e they teach). T h e s t u d e n t s read well-regarded historical a n d

90

W H O

STOLE

FEMINISM?

sociological texts, s u c h as Elizabeth Fox-Genovese's Within the Plantation Household, Charles Joyner's Down by the Riverside, a n d Eugene Genovese's Roll Jordan Roll. V. S. Naipaul's A Turn in the South was on the list—as well as w o r k s b y Kate C h o p i n , Ellen Glasgow, a n d August Evans Wilson. I was sorry n o t to find E u d o r a Welty or Flannery O'Connor, w h o are generally esteemed as t w o of the m o s t outstanding s o u t h e r n w o m e n writ­ ers. All the s a m e , it a p p e a r s to b e a solid course. Unfortunately, courses like this o n e are the exception. T h e Rutgers m o d e l is m o r e the n o r m , not only for w o m e n ' s studies b u t for all "feminist classrooms." For the past few years I have reviewed h u n d r e d s of syllabi from w o m ­ en's studies courses, a t t e n d e d m o r e feminist conferences than I care to r e m e m b e r , s t u d i e d the n e w "feminist pedagogy," reviewed dozens of texts, j o u r n a l s , newsletters, a n d d o n e a lot of late-into-the-night reading of e-mail letters that t h o u s a n d s of " n e t w o r k e d " w o m e n ' s studies teachers s e n d to o n e a n o t h e r . I have taught feminist theory. I have debated gender feminists o n college c a m p u s e s a r o u n d the country, a n d on national tele­ vision a n d radio. My experience w i t h academic feminism a n d m y immer­ sion in the ever-growing g e n d e r feminist literature have served to deepen m y conviction that the majority of w o m e n ' s studies classes a n d other classes that teach a "reconceptualized" subject matter are unscholarly, intolerant of dissent, a n d full of gimmicks. In other w o r d s , they are a waste of time. A n d a l t h o u g h they attract female s t u d e n t s because of their social a m b i e n c e , they attract almost n o m e n . They divert the energies of s t u d e n t s — e s p e c i a l l y y o u n g w o m e n — w h o sorely need to be learning h o w to live in a w o r l d that d e m a n d s of t h e m applicable talents a n d skills, n o t feminist fervor or ideological rectitude. Journalist Karen L e h r m a n visited w o m e n ' s studies p r o g r a m s at Berke­ ley, the University of Iowa, Smith College, a n d D a r t m o u t h , audited al­ m o s t thirty classes, a n d interviewed m a n y professors a n d students for a story in Mother Jones: "In m a n y classes discussions alternate between the personal a n d the political, w i t h m e r e pit stops at the academic. Sometimes they are filled w i t h unintelligible post-structuralist jargon; sometimes they consist of consciousness-raising psychobabble, with the students' feelings a n d experiences valued as m u c h as anything the professor or texts have to offer." Ms. L e r h m a n considers this a betrayal: "A h u n d r e d years ago, w o m e n w e r e fighting for the right to learn m a t h , science, L a t i n — t o be e d u c a t e d like m e n ; today, m a n y w o m e n are content to get their feelings heard, their p e r s o n a l p r o b l e m s aired, their instincts a n d intuition re­ spected." T h e feminist classroom does little to p r e p a r e s t u d e n t s to cope in the w o r l d of w o r k a n d culture. It is an embarrassing scandal that, in the n a m e 6

7

THE

FEMINIST

CLASSROOM

91

of feminism, y o u n g w o m e n in o u r colleges a n d universities are taking courses in feminist classrooms that subject t h e m to a lot of b a d p r o s e , psychobabble, a n d " n e w age" nonsense. W h a t has real feminism to d o with sitting a r o u n d in circles a n d talking a b o u t o u r feelings o n m e n s t r u a ­ tion? To use a p h r a s e m u c h used by resenter feminists, the feminist classroom shortchanges w o m e n students. It wastes their time a n d gives t h e m b a d intellectual habits. It isolates t h e m , socially a n d academically. W h i l e male s t u d e n t s are off studying s u c h "vertical" subjects as engineer­ ing a n d biology, w o m e n in feminist classrooms are sitting a r o u n d being "safe" a n d " h o n o r i n g " feelings. In this way, g e n d e r feminist p e d a g o g y plays into old sexist stereotypes that extol w o m e n ' s capacity for intuition, emotion, a n d e m p a t h y while denigrating their capacity to t h i n k objec­ tively a n d systematically in the way m e n can. A p a r e n t s h o u l d t h i n k very carefully before s e n d i n g a d a u g h t e r to o n e of the m o r e gender-feminized colleges. Any school has the freedom to transform itself into a feminist bastion, b u t because the effect o n the students is so powerful it o u g h t to b e h o n e s t a b o u t its attitude. I w o u l d like to see Wellesley College, M o u n t Holyoke, Smith, Mills, a n d the University of M i n n e s o t a — a m o n g the m o r e extreme e x a m p l e s — p r i n t the following a n n o u n c e m e n t o n the first page of their bulletins: W e will h e l p y o u r d a u g h t e r discover the extent to w h i c h she has been in complicity with the patriarchy. W e will encourage h e r to reconstruct herself t h r o u g h dialogue w i t h us. She m a y b e c o m e en­ raged a n d chronically offended. She will very likely reject the reli­ gious a n d m o r a l codes you raised her with. She m a y well distance herself from family a n d friends. She m a y change h e r appearance, a n d even her sexual orientation. She m a y e n d u p hating you (her father) a n d pitying you (her m o t h e r ) . After she has c o m p l e t e d h e r reeducation with us, you will certainly b e o u t tens of t h o u s a n d s of dollars a n d very possibly be out o n e d a u g h t e r as well.

At the Austin conference, m y sister a n d I a t t e n d e d a p a c k e d w o r k s h o p called "White Male Hostility in the Feminist Classroom," led by two female assistant professors from the State University of N e w York at Plattsburgh. W h a t to d o a b o u t y o u n g m e n w h o refuse to use genderneutral p r o n o u n s ? Most agreed that the instructor s h o u l d grade t h e m d o w n . O n e of the Plattsburghers told u s a b o u t a male s t u d e n t w h o h a d "baited her" w h e n she h a d defended a fifteen-year-old's right to have a n abortion w i t h o u t parental consent. T h e s t u d e n t h a d asked, " W h a t a b o u t

92

W H O

STOLE

FEMINISM?

a 15-year-old that w a n t e d to m a r r y a 30-year-old?" She referred to this as a "trap." In p h i l o s o p h y , it is k n o w n as a legitimate counterexample to be treated seriously a n d dealt w i t h b y counterargument. But she w a n t e d to k n o w w h a t advice w e h a d to offer. T h e a g r e e d - u p o n r e m e d y w a s to say to this misguided y o u n g m a n , "I a m trying to figure o u t w h y y o u are asking this k i n d of question." Some­ o n e n o t e d that female s t u d e n t s in the class can usually be relied u p o n to k e e p male s t u d e n t s in check. O n e w o m a n got a big laugh w h e n she told of a feminist s t u d e n t w h o silenced an "obnoxious male" by screaming "Shut u p , y o u fucker!" T h e g r o u p w a s m o r e perplexed a b o u t w h a t to d o with recalcitrant females. N o w that w o m e n ' s courses are required on m o r e a n d m o r e c a m p u s e s , the feminist p e d a g o g u e s expect m o r e resistance. As one partic­ ipant t r i u m p h a n t l y n o t e d , "If the s t u d e n t s are comfortable, w e are n o t doing our job." In the feminist classroom, s t u d e n t s e n c o u n t e r committed teachers eager to interpret their lives, their societies, their intellectual heritage for t h e m — i n n o u n c e r t a i n terms. Here, for example, is h o w Professor Joyce Trebilcot of W a s h i n g t o n University in St. Louis sees her primary peda­ gogical duty: "If the classroom situation is very heteropatriarchal—a large b e g i n n i n g class of 5 0 or 6 0 s t u d e n t s , say, with few feminist s t u d e n t s — I a m likely to define m y task as largely o n e of r e c r u i t m e n t . . . of persuading s t u d e n t s that w o m e n are o p p r e s s e d . " Persuading female s t u d e n t s that they are oppressed is the first step in the a r d u o u s consciousness-raising process. Professor A n n Ferguson, a University of Massachusetts p h i l o s o p h e r , uses her p h i l o s o p h y classes to h e l p s t u d e n t s u n c o v e r their feelings of "anger a n d oppression": "There are various t e c h n i q u e s w h i c h aid s u c h personal recovery of feelings, in­ cluding p e r s o n a l j o u r n a l s , role playing . . . class a n d teacher collectively sharing p e r s o n a l experiences a n d feelings." Students like strong-minded teachers w h o b r e a t h e c o m m i t m e n t , a n d the feminist teacher has her a p ­ peal. But it is fair to say that m o s t s t u d e n t s are not "buying into" gender feminism. M a n y resent the a t t e m p t to recruit them. Even m o r e resent the shift away from a traditional pedagogy w h o s e primary objective is teach­ ing s t u d e n t s a subject m a t t e r that will be useful to them. Professor Fer­ g u s o n has also h a d to w o r k o u t techniques to deal with s t u d e n t r e s e n t m e n t t o w a r d her. She a d m i t s she is routinely accused of being "narrow-minded and polemical." 8

9

10

T h e Parsippany conference o n curricular transformation included sev­ eral w o r k s h o p s o n s t u d e n t resistance: in "Resistance in the Classroom," Professor K. E d i n g t o n from T o w s o n State University referred to her male

THE

FEMINIST

93

CLASSROOM

students as " C h i p s " a n d the females as "Buffys." Professor Edington w a s delighted by an " e n o r m o u s federal grant" that T o w s o n State h a d received for transformation w o r k . But she d i d n o t give the impression of liking her students, a n d she certainly seems to have little regard for t h e m morally or intellectually. Having told us a b o u t the Buffys a n d the C h i p s a n d a b o u t w h a t "all the p r e p p y clones believe," she w e n t on, w i t h o u t a h i n t of irony, to say, " W e have to teach t h e m to confront stereotypes a n d bias directly." Although they are themselves doctrinally i m m u n e to criticism—it's really "backlash" in disguise—transformationist teachers are far from in­ different to the dissidents in their classrooms. In a recent issue of Thought and Action, the j o u r n a l o n higher education p u t o u t by the National Education Association, two professors from Fresno State University, Marcia Bedard a n d Beth H a r t u n g , report o n a "crisis" in w o m e n ' s studies courses created by "hostile male s t u d e n t s " a n d their "negative b o d y lan­ g u a g e . " They single o u t m e m b e r s of "hypermasculine c a m p u s s u b c u l ­ tures . . . fraternities, organized athletics, a n d military a n d police science" as especially disruptive. "They never miss a class." W h a t sort of behavior d o the Fresno pedagogues consider examples of "classroom harassment"? Their list of offenses includes "challenging facts," stating the exceptions to every generalization, a n d leaping to an a r g u m e n t at the first p a u s e in the teacher's lecture. Professor H a r t u n g says students are h a r d e r o n w o m e n ' s studies teachers than on teachers of o t h e r courses: "Male a n d female s t u d e n t s evaluating their w o m e n ' s studies teacher . . . c o m p a r e d to teachers of other courses . . . were m o r e likely to m a k e negative a n d even cruel assessments, even in r e t r o s p e c t . " Reading b e t w e e n the lines of Ms. Bedard a n d Ms. Hartung's report, a n d m a n y others o n the subject, w e get a clear picture of s t u d e n t s trying h a r d to m a n a g e all by themselves, with w h a t m u s t b e a very frustrating classroom situation. T h e s t u d e n t w h o is u n a w a r e of the charged a t m o ­ sphere in the feminist classroom quickly learns that h u m o r is n o t a g o o d idea. A University of Michigan s o p h o m o r e , S h a w n Brown, w r o t e a p a p e r for a political science course in w h i c h h e discussed the difficulties of getting reliable polls: 11

12

Let's say Dave [the] Stud is entertaining three beautiful ladies in his p e n t h o u s e w h e n the p h o n e rings. A pollster o n the other e n d w a n t s to k n o w if w e s h o u l d eliminate the capital gains tax. N o w Dave is a knowledgeable businessperson w h o cares a lot a b o u t this issue. But since Dave is "tied u p " at the m o m e n t , h e tells the pollster to "bother" s o m e o n e e l s e . 13

94

W H O

STOLE

FEMINISM?

D e b o r a h Meizlish, a g r a d u a t e teaching assistant w h o graded Mr. Brown's p a p e r , w a s incensed. She w r o t e in the margins: Professor Rosenstone has encouraged m e to interpret this c o m m e n t as a n e x a m p l e of sexual h a r a s s m e n t a n d to take the appropriate formal steps. I have chosen n o t to d o so in this instance. However, a n y future c o m m e n t s , in a p a p e r , in a class or in any dealings [with m e ] will b e interpreted as sexual harassment a n d formal steps will b e taken. . . . YOU are forewarned! T h e male professor w h o read Mr. Brown's p a p e r h a d indeed advised teaching assistant D e b o r a h Meizlish to file formal harassment charges. T h e chair, Professor Arlene Saxonhouse, backed Rosenstone's a n d Meizlish's c e n s u r i n g of Mr. Brown: "There is a difference between censorship a n d expressing c o n c e r n over a student's m o d e of e x p r e s s i o n . " In a reply to Saxonhouse's letter, a n u n d e r g r a d u a t e , A d a m Devore, pointed out that "there is also a difference b e t w e e n 'expressing concern' a n d writing, 'You are forewarned!' " 14

In a case of this k i n d , faculty d o n o t usually rally to the s u p p o r t of the s t u d e n t . However, the incident attracted the attention of Professor Carl C o h e n , a w e l l - k n o w n social p h i l o s o p h e r a n d free speech defender. Pro­ fessor C o h e n w r o t e to the school newspaper, defending Shawn Brown a n d criticizing the chair of the d e p a r t m e n t of political science, the dean, a n d the teaching assistant for their violation of Brown's right to write as h e did. Professor C o h e n ' s a r g u m e n t s were later cited by a m e m b e r of the b o a r d of regents w h o voted against a highly restrictive behavior code being p r o p o s e d for the university. S h a w n Brown h a d n o t m e a n t to offend or even to criticize anyone. For the m o s t part, s t u d e n t s p r u d e n t l y t e n d to reserve critical c o m m e n t until after final grades are in a n d s t u d e n t evaluations can b e safely published. Dale M. Bauer, a professor of English w h o teaches composition a n d intro­ d u c t o r y literature courses at Miami University, reported that about half of the evaluation r e s p o n s e s from two first-year composition a n d introduc­ tion to literature sections expressed objections to her feminist s t a n c e . Ms. Bauer p r o v i d e s samples, "copied verbatim," of s t u d e n t complaints: 15

I feel this course w a s d o m i n a t e d a n d overpowered by feminist doc­ trines a n d ideals. I feel the feminist m o v e m e n t is very interesting to look at, b u t I got extremely b o r e d w i t h it a n d it lost all its p u n c h & m e a n i n g because it w a s so drilled into o u r brains.

THE

FEMINIST

CLASSROOM

95

I . . . think you s h o u l d n ' t voice y o u r "feminist" views because w e don't need to k n o w t h a t — I t ' s s o m e t h i n g that s h o u l d be left outside class. I found it very offensive that all of o u r readings focused o n femin­ ism. Feminism is an i m p o r t a n t issue in s o c i e t y — b u t a very controversial one. It n e e d s to be confronted o n a personal basis, n o t in the class­ room. I didn't appreciate feminist c o m m e n t s o n p a p e r s or expressed a b o u t w o r k . This is n o t the only i n s t r u c t o r — o t h e r s in the English Dept. have difficulties leaving personal opinions o u t of their c o m ­ ments. Characteristically, Ms. Bauer a n d h e r colleagues profess n o t to b e dis­ concerted by the negative evaluations. Instead they take t h e m to s h o w that renewed efforts are needed. As Ms. Bauer sees it, the question re­ mains " H o w d o w e m o v e ourselves out of this political impasse a n d resistance in order to get o u r s t u d e n t s to identify with the political agenda of f e m i n i s m ? " She regards her teaching as "a k i n d of counter-indoctri­ nation." T h e need for "counter-indoctrination" was m a d e clear to h e r w h e n she saw the following negative evaluation of herself from a s t u d e n t w h o h a d taken o n e of her first-year composition courses: "[The teacher] consistently channels class discussions a r o u n d feminism a n d does n o t s p e n d time discussing the c o m m e n t s that o p p o s e her beliefs. In fact, s h e usually twists t h e m a r o u n d to s u p p o r t her beliefs." 16

17

In dealing with this k i n d of resistance, the feminist p e d a g o g u e tends to read s t u d e n t criticism as the expression of u n a c k n o w l e d g e d b u t d e e p seated prejudice or fear. "Resistance" is "only to b e expected." After all, students have b e e n t h o r o u g h l y "socialized" to their g e n d e r roles a n d class loyalties; only a painful process of reeducation can free t h e m from those roles a n d loyalties. Their very resistance is dramatic evidence of their condition. Criticism m a y cause her to modify her tactics; it can never cause her to d o u b t her cause.

The gender feminist will usually acknowledge that her aims are i n d e e d political a n d that she is seeking to p e r s u a d e her s t u d e n t s to b e c o m e active in the cause. She justifies t u r n i n g her classroom into a base in the struggle against patriarchy by arguing that all teaching is basically political, that all teachers indoctrinate their s t u d e n t s , t h o u g h often w i t h o u t being aware that they are d o i n g so. As for the pedagogical ideal of disinterested schol-

96

W H O

STOLE

FEMINISM?

arship a n d "objective truth," the g e n d e r feminists d e n y that these ideals are attainable. T h e claim that all teaching is a form of indoctrination, usually in the service of those w h o are politically d o m i n a n t , helps to justify the peda­ gogy of the feminist classroom. Feminist academics often say that apart from the enclave of w o m e n ' s studies, the university curriculum consists of " m e n ' s studies." T h e y m e a n by this that m o s t of w h a t students normally learn is designed to m a i n t a i n a n d reinforce the existing patriarchy. To a n y o n e w h o actually believes this, combatting the standard indoctrination w i t h a feminist "counter-indoctrination" seems only fair a n d sensible. T h e British p h i l o s o p h e r Roger Scruton, aided by two colleagues at the Education Research Center in England, has p o i n t e d to several p r o m i n e n t features that distinguish indoctrination from normal e d u c a t i o n . In a c o m p e t e n t , well-designed course, s t u d e n t s learn m e t h o d s for weighing evidence a n d critical m e t h o d s for evaluating a r g u m e n t s for soundness. T h e y learn h o w to arrive at reasoned conclusions from the best evidence at h a n d . By contrast, in cases of indoctrination, the conclusions are as­ s u m e d beforehand. Scruton calls this feature of indoctrination the "Fore­ g o n e C o n c l u s i o n . " According to Scruton, the adoption of a foregone conclusion is the m o s t salient feature of indoctrination. In the case of g e n d e r feminism, the "foregone conclusion" is that American m e n strive to k e e p w o m e n subjugated. T h e " H i d d e n Unity" is a second salient feature. The foregone conclu­ sions are p a r t of a "unified set of beliefs" that form the worldview or political p r o g r a m the indoctrinator wishes to impart to the students. In the case of the g e n d e r feminist, the " H i d d e n Unity" is the sex/gender interpretation of society, the belief that m o d e r n w o m e n are an oppressed class living " u n d e r patriarchy." Indoctrinators also operate within a "Closed System" that is i m m u n e to criticism. In the case of g e n d e r feminism, the closed system interprets all data as confirming the theory of patriarchal oppression. In a term m a d e p o p u l a r b y Sir Karl P o p p e r , g e n d e r feminism is nonfalsifiable, m a k i n g it m o r e like a religious u n d e r t a k i n g than an intellectual one. If, for example, s o m e w o m e n p o i n t o u t that they are n o t oppressed, they only confirm the existence of a system of oppression, for they "show" h o w the system d u p e s w o m e n b y socializing t h e m to believe they are free, thereby keeping t h e m docile a n d cooperative. As Smith College transformationists Marilyn Schuster a n d Susan Van D y n e note, "The n u m b e r of female professors w h o still see n o inequity or omissions in the male-defined curriculum . . . serves to u n d e r s c o r e dramatically h o w thoroughly w o m e n students may b e deceived in believing these values are congruent with their i n t e r e s t s . " 18

19

THE

FEMINIST

CLASSROOM

97

But w h a t these a p p r o a c h e s dramatically u n d e r s c o r e is h o w "effectively" doctrinaire feminists deal w i t h a n y p h e n o m e n o n that poses the remotest threat to their tight little m e n t a l island. G e n d e r feminism is a closed system. It chews u p a n d digests all counterevidence, t r a n s m u t i n g it into confirming evidence. N o t h i n g a n d n o o n e can refute the hypothesis of the sex/gender system for those w h o "see it everywhere."

Every society teaches a n d highlights its o w n political history, a n d America is n o exception. Recognizing this, however, is very different from admitting that a " n o r m a l education" is basically an indoctrination in the politics of the status q u o . In fact, objectivity remains the ideal t o w a r d which fair-minded teachers aspire. O n e way they a p p r o x i m a t e it is b y presenting b o t h sides of a controversial subject. Of course, w e recognize a n d acknowledge that w h a t a n d h o w h e or she teaches is very often affected by the biases of the teacher. It r e m a i n s true, nevertheless, that some teachers a n d the courses they teach are m o r e biased t h a n others. Consider h o w history is taught in totalitarian societies. Is a s t a n d a r d course in, say, ancient history, as typically taught by an American profes­ sor, ideological in the s a m e sense as a state-monitored history of the USSR taught in Stalin's era? To h o l d that all teaching is ideological is to b e blind to the cardinal distinction b e t w e e n education a n d indoctrination. If o n e believes that all k n o w l e d g e is socially constructed to serve the p o w e r s that be, or, m o r e specifically, if o n e h o l d s that the science a n d culture w e teach are basically a "patriarchal construction" designed to s u p p o r t a "male h e g e m o n y , " t h e n o n e denies, as a matter of principle, a n y i m p o r t a n t difference b e t w e e n k n o w l e d g e a n d ideology, between t r u t h a n d d o g m a , between reality a n d p r o p a g a n d a , b e t w e e n objective teaching a n d incul­ cating a set of beliefs. Many c a m p u s feminists d o , in fact, reject these distinctions, a n d that is pedagogically a n d politically irresponsible a n d dangerous. For w h e n the Big Brothers in a n Orwellian w o r l d justify their cynical m a n i p u l a t i o n of the m a n y by the tyrannical few, they, too, argue that reality is "socially constructed" by those in p o w e r a n d that indoctri­ nation is all w e can expect. In 1984, George Orwell's tragic hero, W i n s t o n Smith, tries to defy the torturer, O'Brien, by h o l d i n g fast to the belief in a n objective reality. O'Brien r e m i n d s W i n s t o n Smith that h e will be paying the price for that old-fashioned belief: "You believe that reality is s o m e t h i n g objective, ex­ ternal, existing in its o w n right. . . . But I tell you, W i n s t o n , reality is n o t external. . . . It is impossible to see reality except by looking t h r o u g h the eyes of the P a r t y . " 20

98

W H O

STOLE

FEMINISM?

A n d W i n s t o n Smith is " p e r s u a d e d " to change his m i n d . Those w h o believe that all teaching is political have labeled everything in advance, a n d they b r o o k n o c o u n t e r arguments. Critical philosophers are well a c q u a i n t e d w i t h this move: first it labels everything, then it rides r o u g h s h o d over fundamental differences. That h a p p e n s w h e n armchair psychologists c o m e u p w i t h the startling doctrine that all h u m a n activity is motivated by selfishness, or w h e n armchair metaphysicians a n n o u n c e that whatever h a p p e n s is bound to h a p p e n . The p r o n o u n c e m e n t s of "psy­ chological egoism" or "fatalistic metaphysics" have an air of being p r o ­ found, b u t they destroy s o u n d thinking by obliterating the distinctions that w e m u s t have if w e are to t h i n k straight a n d see things clearly a n d distinctly. Label it as you will; there is, after all, a difference between caring a n d u n c a r i n g behavior, between callous, selfish disregard for oth­ ers a n d considérateness a n d concern. There is a difference between events that h a p p e n accidentally a n d those that are planned. So, too, is there a difference between education a n d propaganda. The economist T h o m a s Sowell notes that the statement "All teaching is polit­ ical" is trivially true in j u s t the way the statement "Abraham Lincoln a n d Adolf Hitler w e r e b o t h imperfect h u m a n beings" is t r u e . T h e b l u r r i n g of vital distinctions is a m a r k of ideology or immaturity. W e could b e m o r e tolerant of the p r o n o u n c e m e n t that in some sense all courses are political if c a m p u s feminists were p r e p a r e d to acknowledge the vital difference b e t w e e n courses taught in a disinterested m a n n e r a n d those taught to p r o m o t e an ideology. But that is precisely w h a t so m a n y deny. This denial is so perverse that w e are led to w o n d e r w h a t possible advantage the feminist ideologues could b e getting from erasing the ob­ vious a n d reasonable distinctions that m o s t of us recognize and respect. O n reflection, it is clear that their denial serves t h e m very well indeed, by leaving t h e m free to d o w h a t they please in their classrooms. Having d e n i e d the very possibility of objective learning, they are n o longer b o u n d b y the n e e d to a d h e r e to traditional standards of a curriculum that seeks to convey an objective b o d y of information. Putting "objectivity" in scare q u o t e s , the feminists simply d e n y it as a possible pedagogical ideal. "Man is the m e a s u r e of all things," said old P r o t a g o r a s — a n d the gender femi­ nists agree that in the past M a n was the measure. N o w it is W o m a n ' s turn. This pedagogical p h i l o s o p h y licenses the feminist teacher to lay d o w n "conclusions" or "rules" w i t h o u t feeling the need to argue for them. Con­ sider the " g r o u n d rules" developed by the Center for Research on W o m e n at M e m p h i s State University a n d used at Rutgers University, the Univer21

THE

FEMINIST

CLASSROOM

99

sity of Minnesota, P e n n State, a n d other schools a r o u n d the country. T h e students are asked to accept t h e m as a condition for taking the course: For the p u r p o s e s of this course w e agree to these rules: 1. Acknowledge that oppression (i.e., racism, sexism, classism) exists. 2. Acknowledge that o n e of the m e c h a n i s m s of oppression (i.e., rac­ ism, sexism, classism, heterosexism) is that w e are all systematically taught misinformation a b o u t o u r o w n g r o u p s a n d a b o u t m e m b e r s of b o t h d o m i n a n t a n d s u b o r d i n a t e g r o u p s . 3 . Assume that p e o p l e (both the g r o u p s w e s t u d y a n d the m e m b e r s of the class) always d o the best they can. 4. If m e m b e r s of the class wish to m a k e c o m m e n t s that they d o n o t w a n t repeated outside the classroom, they can preface their r e m a r k s with a request a n d the class will agree n o t to repeat the r e m a r k s . 22

First, it s h o u l d be p o i n t e d out that these "rules" are very u n u s u a l for a college class. Teachers frequently have rules a b o u t absences or late p a p e r s , b u t here the rules d e m a n d that the s t u d e n t s a d o p t particular beliefs, n o n e of w h i c h is self-evident. Consider rule n o . 1, w h i c h asserts that " o p p r e s ­ sion exists." Stated in this unqualified way, it cannot be denied. But since the s t u d e n t is m e a n t to u n d e r s t a n d that oppression exists in the United States in the form of classism a n d sexism, the matter is n o t nearly so simple. Is it n o t at least arguable that o n e of the good features of American life is that here, in contrast to m o s t other countries, an individual can rise in the socioeconomic scale despite his or her b a c k g r o u n d ? Is this n o t o n e reason w h y m a n y outsiders are so eager to c o m e here? W h y then speak of class oppression? The coupling of sexism a n d racism is also problematic. Are they really that similar? Is sexism a national p r o b l e m o n a p a r with racism? T h e rule requires the s t u d e n t to accept that it is. Indeed, it is typical of the struc­ ture of m a n y w o m e n ' s studies courses in p u t t i n g a lot of loaded a n d controversial questions b e y o n d the pale of discussion. A n d that is exactly w h a t a college course s h o u l d n o t b e doing. Rule n o . 2 says: " O n e of the m e c h a n i s m s of oppression is that w e are all systematically taught misinformation." N o d o u b t o n occasion everyone is taught s o m e t h i n g that is n o t true. But are w e "systematically" being given "misinformation"? W h e n p e o p l e were of the opinion that the w o r l d was flat, o n e m i g h t say they were "systematically" being taught that. But since everyone t h o u g h t that was true, w e s h o u l d n ' t speak of "misinfor­ mation," w h i c h c o n n o t e s m o r e t h a n u n i n t e n t i o n a l error. As the w o m e n ' s studies scholars here use it, "systematically" connotes "deliberately" a n d

100

W H O

STOLE

FEMINISM?

w i t h political p u r p o s e s in m i n d . This alludes to the insidious workings of patriarchy, the " H i d d e n Unity" that keeps w o m e n in thrall to m e n . But it is certainly false that all of u s are being deliberately (systematically) taught untruths. Rule n o . 3 asks s t u d e n t s to a s s u m e that g r o u p s always d o the best they can. But w h y s h o u l d they b e required to m a k e s u c h a plainly false as­ s u m p t i o n ? People, especially in g r o u p s , often could d o a lot better than they d o . W h y a s s u m e the opposite? This rule, too, is characteristic of the "feel g o o d " spirit of m a n y w o m e n ' s studies courses. Since every g r o u p is "doing its best," it is churlish to criticize any given g r o u p . (Does this a s s u m p t i o n e x t e n d to fraternities? A n d to the football team?) Rule no. 3 serves a n o t h e r , u n s t a t e d p u r p o s e : to p r e e m p t criticism that might disrupt the teacher's agenda. Rule n o . 4 , w h i c h requires absolute confidentiality, is similarly objec­ tionable. Classes s h o u l d b e free a n d open: anything said in the classroom s h o u l d b e repeatable outside. That an instructor invites or even allows h e r s t u d e n t s to "speak o u t " a b o u t personal affairs is an unfailing sign that the course is u n s u b s t a n t i a l a n d unscholarly. Moreover, the students w h o are e n c o u r a g e d to s p e a k of painful incidents in their lives n o t only are being s h o r t c h a n g e d scholastically, they are also at risk of being h a r m e d by their disclosures. Even m e n t a l health professionals in clinical settings exercise great caution in eliciting traumatic disclosures. Any good school p r o v i d e s professional h e l p to distressed s t u d e n t s w h o need it. The ama­ teur interventions of a teacher are intrusive a n d potentially harmful. But getting s t u d e n t s to m a k e painful personal disclosures is a special feature of feminist pedagogy. Kali Tal, a cultural studies instructor, re­ cently shared the "Rules of C o n d u c t " she used at George Mason Univer­ sity w i t h all the m e m b e r s of the w o m e n ' s studies electronic bulletin board: 2 3

Rape a n d incest are t o u c h y subjects. Some class participants will be survivors of sexual abuse. Everyone will likely have m o m e n t s in this class w h e n they are angry or sad or p e r h a p s frightened. It is impor­ tant . . . to m a k e this classroom a safe place for students to share experiences, feelings, a n d intellectual ideas. I have therefore com­ p o s e d the following list of g r o u n d rules: 1. T h e r e will b e n o i n t e r r u p t i o n of any speaker. 2. T h e r e will b e n o p e r s o n a l criticism of any k i n d directed by any m e m b e r of the class to a n y other m e m b e r of the class. 3 . Because s o m e of the material discussed a n d viewed in this course contains extremely graphic a n d violent material, s o m e students

THE

FEMINIST

CLASSROOM

101

may find it necessary to take a n occasional "breather." Students should feel free to stand u p a n d walk o u t of class if they find themselves in need of a short break. It is permissible (and even encouraged) to ask a classmate to a c c o m p a n y you d u r i n g s u c h a break. As a final g r o u n d rule, Professor Tal tells s t u d e n t s "this class is n o t a therapy session." Inevitably, s o m e s t u d e n t s w h o c o m e to class to get information, to learn useful skills, a n d to analyze issues m o r e deeply feel cheated by s u c h approaches. They m a y feel that the teacher is wasting their time. W h a t does the feminist teacher, intent o n "creating agents of social change," think of her s t u d e n t s w h e n they react in this way? Elizabeth Fay, a feminist writing instructor at the University of Massa­ chusetts, tells a b o u t a s t u d e n t she calls Minnie, a y o u n g working-class w o m a n from Puerto Rico w h o lived w i t h h e r divorced m o t h e r . Minnie sat sullenly t h r o u g h h e r classes, occasionally asking angry questions a n d being "confrontational" in conference s e s s i o n s . W h e n the course w a s over, Minnie filed a complaint that she h a d n o t learned any writing skills in the course. As Professor Fay describes it: 24

Minnie's complaints rested o n three m a i n points: she was given n o m o d e l essays to emulate; she was n o t given directive c o m m e n t a r y that w o u l d have s h o w n her h o w to rewrite; she was given n o for­ mulae to follow for each particular essay genre. In other w o r d s , she was denied constraint, she was asked to t h i n k o n her o w n , a n d she was given the o p p o r t u n i t y to give a n d receive p e e r feedback w i t h o u t an i n t r u d i n g master v o i c e . 25

Professor Fay's analysis of Minnie's grievance is complacently self-serv­ ing. It "silences" Minnie by treating her as s o m e o n e w h o prefers "con­ straint" a n d a "master voice" to liberation. Professor Fay, w h o is n o t listening to Minnie, accuses Minnie of refusing to listen: "She m a d e it clear that n o t i o n s of multiple voices a n d visions, n o t i o n s of g e n d e r poli­ tics, notions of s t u d e n t e m p o w e r m e n t did n o t t o u c h h e r n e e d for the p r o p e r style, the p r o p e r accent, the Doolittle m a k e o v e r she h a d signed u p for." But Minnie h a d n ' t signed u p for voices, visions, a n d gender politics; she h a d signed u p for a course in English composition. She w a n t e d h e r essays corrected because she w a n t e d to learn to write better English. T h a t is n o t an unreasonable expectation for a writing course. But to Professor 26

102

W H O

STOLE

FEMINISM?

Fay, Minnie h a d missed the real p o i n t of w h a t the course in freshman c o m p o s i t i o n w a s about: In freshman composition, w h a t w e try to give students is a con­ sciousness a b o u t the social register a n d the range of voices they can a n d d o a d o p t in o r d e r to get o n with business. But it is their com­ bination of d e m a n d a n d distrust (are you sure this is w h a t I need? are you wasting m y time a n d money?) that propels certain students into resistant postures. Minnie's out-of-class hostility a n d in-class silent p r o p r i e t y b e s p e a k a surface socialization that itself resists the i n d u c t i o n process; she desires a n academically gilded a r m o r b u t not a change of self, n o t a b e c o m i n g . 27

Professor Fay, w h o is d i s a p p o i n t e d that Minnie has failed to avail herself of the c h a n c e to " b e c o m e , " quite sincerely believes that Minnie's recalcitrant attitude c o m e s from having been "socialized" in ways that " p r o p e l " h e r into a resistant p o s t u r e . It simply never occurs to Professor Fay that h e r o w n attitude t o w a r d Minnie is disrespectful a n d that it is she w h o has b e e n t a u g h t b y h e r feminist m e n t o r s to a d o p t a patronizing p o s t u r e t o w a r d w o m e n like h e r . Michael Olenick, a j o u r n a l i s m major at the University of Minnesota, r e p o r t e d his experiences w i t h W o m e n ' s Studies 101 in an editorial in the school n e w s p a p e r : " W h e n I signed u p for a w o m e n ' s studies class I expected to learn a b o u t feminism, famous w o m e n , w o m e n ' s history, a n d w o m e n ' s culture. . . . Instead of finding n e w insights into the world of w o m e n , I found . . . bizarre theories a b o u t world conspiracies dedicated to repressing a n d exploiting w o m e n . " Heather Keena, a senior at the University of Minnesota, wrote a letter s u p p o r t i n g Olenick's c o m p l a i n t a b o u t the a t m o s p h e r e in the classroom. "I was m a d e to feel as t h o u g h I was d e p e n d e n t a n d weak for preferring m e n to w o m e n as sexual p a r t n e r s , a n d to feel that m y opinions were not only insignificant, b u t s o m e h o w t w i s t e d . " Another class member, Kath­ leen Bittinger, t h o u g h t the professor guilty of stereotyping the male gen­ der as chauvinistic: "I was also told that m y religious beliefs a n d sexual orientation are n o t the correct o n e s . " I w o n d e r e d w h a t Professor Albrecht, w h o taught the course, t h o u g h t of the controversy a n d p h o n e d her. She was w a r m a n d personable, a n d h e r c o n c e r n w a s u n d e n i a b l e . In response to the charges that her course was one-sided, she p o i n t e d o u t that s t u d e n t s get their fill of standard viewpoints from "the m a i n s t r e a m media." It was her j o b to give t h e m a deeper truth: "If scholarship isn't a b o u t improving people's lives, then 28

2 9

30

31

THE

FEMINIST

CLASSROOM

103

what is it about?" Ms. Albrecht was clearly c o m m i t t e d to her self-imposed task of telling s t u d e n t s h o w they were being exploited within a patriar­ chal, classist, racist society. It was equally clear that she felt fully justified in n o t giving the other side a hearing. I have c o m e across m a n y devoted teachers w h o , like Professor Albrecht, refuse to listen to "voices" that could in any way affect their determination to p r o d u c e s t u d e n t s w h o are "agents of social change." Ms. Albrecht sent m e her syllabus, w h i c h was unabashedly ideological: it even included a copy of the Rutgers " g r o u n d rules."

Students w h o complain a b o u t feminist pedagogy get little s y m p a t h y from the administration. Lynne M u n s o n , a recent graduate of Northwest­ ern, found the "feminist perspective" everywhere o n h e r c a m p u s : "I took a classics course, a n d w e were encouraged to take p a r t in a feminist demonstration, 'Take Back the Night,' o u t of solidarity w i t h the w o m e n of Sparta. In an art history class the professor attacked Manet's O l y m p i a for its similarities to p o r n o g r a p h i c centerfolds." Ms. M u n s o n was especially critical of a freshman seminar called "The Menstrual Cycle: Fact or Fiction," in w h i c h s t u d e n t s discussed their "rag­ ing h o r m o n a l imbalances." In the o p - e d c o l u m n of her school n e w s p a p e r , M u n s o n w r o t e that a course of this k i n d did n o t contribute m u c h to a liberal arts education. She found the class silly a n d c o m p l a i n e d to the dean that the c u r r i c u l u m was b e c o m i n g faddish a n d losing academic legitimacy. The dean, Stephen Fisher, replied that the course was "a legitimate area of inquiry." He told m e that Ms. M u n s o n seemed to b e distressed b y w o m e n ' s studies a n d to b e seeking ways to u n d e r m i n e it. I asked h i m w h e t h e r h e d i d n ' t t h i n k the m e n s t r u a l cycle s e e m e d a n o d d subject for a freshman seminar; w o u l d n ' t s u c h a course be m o r e a p p r o p r i a t e in a medical school? Did h e n o t share s o m e of the current concerns that today's u n d e r g r a d u a t e s have serious gaps in their k n o w l e d g e of history, science, a n d literature a n d n e e d a firm g r o u n d i n g in the "basics"? T h e dean replied that, unlike the University of Chicago, N o r t h w e s t e r n h a d rejected the core c u r r i c u l u m in favor of general studies a n d that courses like the seminar on the m e n s t r u a l cycle were appropriate to Northwestern's m o r e pluralistic curriculum. W h e n I p o i n t e d o u t that n o o n e was giving seminars o n prostate function or n o c t u r n a l emissions a n d other intimate male topics a b o u t w h i c h there is an equal a m o u n t of ignorance, he seemed a m u s e d , a n d w e left it at that. Menstruation is a favorite t h e m e in w o m e n ' s studies courses. T h e Uni-

104

W H O

STOLE

FEMINISM?

versity of Minnesota offers a course o n "Blood Symbolism in Cross-Cultural Perspective." Topics to b e covered include "blood a n d sexual fluids" a n d " m e n s t r u a t i o n a n d b l o o d letting." At Vassar College they had a "bleed-in." T h e flier a n n o u n c i n g this event said: "Are you d o w n on m e n ­ struation? T h e W o m e n ' s Center w a r m l y welcomes you to the first allc a m p u s BLEED IN O c t o b e r 16, 1 9 9 3 , 8:00 P.M. in the W o m e n ' s C e n t e r . " In a widely u s e d t e x t b o o k called Feminism and Values, the student will read Carol P. Christ o n the i m p o r t a n c e of menstrual fluids in the n e w feminist g o d d e s s rituals. Ms. Christ, a former visiting lecturer at the Har­ vard Divinity School a n d P o m o n a College, tells students of "the joyful affirmation of the female b o d y a n d its cycles" in "Goddess-centered ritu­ als" at the s u m m e r solstice: " F r o m h i d d e n dirty secret to symbol of the life p o w e r of the G o d d e s s , w o m e n ' s blood has c o m e full c i r c l e . " If w o m e n ' s b l o o d has c o m e full circle, the public at large has yet to hear of it. F r o m Finland c o m e s this e-mail request by a feminist scholar w h o is m e n t o r i n g a s t u d e n t ' s research in this area: 32

33

I have a s t u d e n t w o r k i n g o n an MA thesis in sociology on different c o n c e p t i o n s of m e n s t r u a t i o n in Finland. She has been going t h r o u g h medical literature. . . . All this material has s h o w n her a d o m i n a n t discourse based o n traditional medical conceptions. . . . In order to have different voices, she has b e e n interviewing w o m e n . . . . Her p r o b l e m is that a) m o s t w o m e n d o n ' t very m u c h like to talk about m e n s t r u a t i o n , b) m o s t have negative feelings a b o u t i t . . . Does any­ b o d y have a n y suggestions o n h o w to have also positive feelings expressed? 34

Objective researchers d o n o t usually ask for help in getting data m o r e in k e e p i n g w i t h results they w o u l d view as "positive." O n the other h a n d , g e n d e r feminists are convinced that prevailing attitudes toward menstrua­ tion are fixed b y a d o m i n a n t (male) discourse. So the researcher tends to d i s c o u n t the o p i n i o n s of w o m e n (unfortunately a majority) w h o m they regard as giving expression to negative male attitudes, a n d they look for the countervailing " a u t h e n t i c " w o m e n ' s voices. O n e s u c h voice w a s s o u n d e d by feminist theorist J o a n Straumanis Qater d e a n of Faculty at Rollins College). She concluded an address at a w o m e n ' s s t u d y conference entitled "The Structure of Knowledge: A Fem­ inist Perspective": "It is very consciousness-raising to have your period d u r i n g a conference like this one. . . . I d o n ' t k n o w of any other confer­ ence w h e r e the s p e a k e r got u p a n d said that she h a d her period. . . . For that a n d o t h e r reasons, w o m e n ' s studies will never d i e " ! 35

THE

FEMINIST

CLASSROOM

105

Lee Edelman is a p o p u l a r professor of English literature at Tufts Uni­ versity. His course "Hitchcock: Cinema, Gender, Ideology" (English 91) caught m y attention, so I called a n d asked if I m i g h t sit in o n o n e of his classes. I a t t e n d e d Professor Edelman's class o n the day h e discussed g e n d e r roles in Hitchcock's The Thirty-Nine Steps. Edelman, a thirtysomething associate professor, w a s analyzing the r o m a n c e b e t w e e n Robert D o n a t a n d Madeleine Carroll. As h e lectured h e s h o w e d clips from the film, c o m m e n t i n g all the while a b o u t the film's unstated sexual politics. T h e lecture w a s thematically one-dimensional, b u t interesting a n d engaging. At the beginning of the film, Robert Donat, fleeing the authorities, enters a railway c o m p a r t m e n t a n d forcibly kisses Madeleine Carroll to avoid being spotted. E d e l m a n asked, " W h a t does it m e a n to t h i n k a b o u t r o m a n c e always in terms of crime a n d violence?" H e told the class that love is a social construct, first a n d foremost a political w e a p o n : " H o w d o masters of cinema get p e o p l e to find w a r attractive? By suggesting Nazis want to h u r t Mrs. Miniver. You s h o w w o m e n as objects that m e n m u s t protect. W e b o m b Hiroshima for Rita H a y w o r t h . " Professor E d e l m a n asked the class a b o u t a m i n o r character: " H o w d o e s Mr. M e m o r y represent patriarchal knowledge?" N o o n e volunteered a n answer. O n e y o u n g m a n hesitantly p o i n t e d o u t that Carroll seems to enjoy Donat's kiss, since, after all, she closes her eyes a n d d r o p s her glasses. F r o m the b a c k of the classroom a y o u n g w o m a n c o n d e m n e d the male s t u d e n t along w i t h Hitchcock. Both, she said, p r o m o t e the idea that w o m e n enjoy assaults. T h e discussion b e c a m e m o r e animated. E d e l m a n observed that the h a p p y e n d i n g d e p e n d s on "buying into the ideology of romantic love." W a r m i n g to this t h e m e , a n o t h e r y o u n g w o m a n said, "The m o m e n t the heroine falls in love, she ceases to have a distinct identity." Edelman agreed: "She wears a beatific smile, the smile of the fulfilled heterosexual relationship." T h e topic to b e explored the following week: love a n d marriage in the conventional u n i o n . Assignment: Rebecca. Later I s p o k e at length w i t h Professor Edelman. His b a c k g r o u n d is in literary deconstruction, a style of criticism h e deploys to read every "text" (be it a novel, film, song, or TV commercial) as a n expression, if n o t a w e a p o n , of the o p p r e s s o r culture. H e believes the p u r p o s e of teaching is to challenge the culture b y d e b u n k i n g ("deconstructing") its "texts." H e believes g o o d teaching is adversarial. W h e n I asked h i m if h e felt h e h a d an obligation to give a r g u m e n t s for the other side, E d e l m a n m a d e Professor Albrecht's point: h e has the

106

W H O

STOLE

FEMINISM?

s t u d e n t s for only a p r e c i o u s few h o u r s a week; the d o m i n a n t culture has t h e m the rest of the time. It m a y b e the only time in their lives they are exposed to iconoclastic t h i n k i n g a b o u t their culture. I h a d enjoyed the class a n d w o u l d n o t have m i n d e d hearing h i m on Rebecca. E d e l m a n w a s fun to listen to, even w h e n h e k e p t insisting the s t u d e n t s m u s t learn to see h o w sex bias is inscribed in every cultural artifact, every w o r k of art, every novel, every movie. The students were learning a lot a b o u t h o w Hitchcock exploited sexual themes, b u t from w h e r e I sat there w a s a lot they were n o t learning, including w h y Hitch­ cock is considered a great filmmaker. They were n o t learning a b o u t his mastery in b u i l d i n g suspense. T h e y were n o t told, n o r could they explain, w h y The Thirty-Nine Steps h a d set a n e w style for cinematic dialogue. The Tufts s t u d e n t s w e r e being taught to "see t h r o u g h " Hitchcock's films before they h a d learned to look at t h e m a n d before they k n e w m u c h a b o u t w h y they s h o u l d b e s t u d y i n g t h e m in the first place. Nothing the students said indicated they h a d learned m u c h a b o u t Hitchcock or his work. By the time E d e l m a n got t h r o u g h " u n m a s k i n g " the sexism of The Thirty-Nine Steps, the s t u d e n t s ' disdain for it w o u l d have left t h e m with little incentive to regard H i t c h c o c k as a great filmmaker. They were learning w h a t Hitch­ cock w a s "really" u p to, a n d that, apparently, was w h a t mattered. These omissions are characteristic of m u c h teaching that goes on in the c o n t e m p o r a r y classroom. Today's s t u d e n t s are culturally u n d e r n o u r i s h e d . T h e college English class is the o n e o p p o r t u n i t y for students to be ex­ p o s e d to great poetry, s h o r t stories, novels, a n d theater. If they d o not learn to respect a n d enjoy g o o d literature in college, they probably never will.

T h e feminist classroom strongly affects m a n y an impressionable stu­ dent. T h e effect o n the teacher m a y also be dramatic, especially if she is a n e o p h y t e . Professor Dixie King tells h o w a course she was teaching trans­ formed her: "In teaching m y first w o m e n ' s studies course m a n y years ago, I found myself c h a n g i n g as I talked; I discovered the extent to w h i c h I h a d b e e n in complicity w i t h the system, male-trained into the system; I d e c o n s t r u c t e d myself a n d reconstructed myself t h r o u g h dialogue in that class." In the course of inquiries into academic feminism I k e p t coming across s t u d e n t s w h o marveled at h o w m u c h they h a d b e e n changed by their n e w perspective o n the social reality. Students w h o see the workings of the sex/gender system "everywhere" are turning u p in nonfeminist classrooms 36

THE

FEMINIST

CLASSROOM

107

ready to challenge the "phallocentric reasoning" of their instructors. Some faculty consider s u c h s t u d e n t s virtually unteachable. O n e Midwestern English professor told m e : "It is very difficult to teach s t u d e n t s w h o have been trained to take the 'feminist perspective.' T h e y have this steely look in their eyes. T h e y distrust everything you say. For t h e m reason itself is patriarchal, linear, a n d oppressive. You c a n n o t argue with them. Every­ thing is grist for their mill." Kim Paffenroth, a former divinity s t u d e n t at Harvard, is o n e of several students w h o is d i s t u r b e d at the extent to w h i c h the radical feminist perspective d o m i n a t e s his classes. O n e of his professors was sharply in­ terrupted, m i d s e n t e n c e , by an angry T.A. w h o "corrected" h i m because he h a d referred to G o d as "he." "I was quite s h o c k e d at the r u d e n e s s of her interruption, b u t even m o r e aghast as I saw h o w m u c h p o w e r s h e could wield with s u c h petty r u d e n e s s w h e n the professor meekly cor­ rected himself a n d apologized." College c a m p u s e s used to be t h o u g h t of as enclaves of high spirits a n d irreverence. Academic feminism has h a d a great deal to d o w i t h drastically changing that image. T h e political scientist Abigail T h e r n s t r o m describes American colleges as islands of intolerance in a sea of freedom. I visited one s u c h island in the fall of 1989. The College of W o o s t e r in O h i o has a strong feminist presence. O p ­ position to feminist ideology is mainly surreptitious. O n e assistant profes­ sor, w h o requests anonymity, told m e that it is "suicidal" to criticize c a m p u s feminists in a n y way. "They w a n t p e o p l e to be scared. T h e n you keep quiet a n d they d o n ' t have to deal with you." He described the a t m o s p h e r e as "McCarthyist." A n o t h e r silent critic excused his timidity on social g r o u n d s . Being perceived as confrontational in a small t o w n is costly. " W e have to live w i t h these people." Yet a n o t h e r professor admit­ ted his despair over the radical feminist e n c r o a c h m e n t at W o o s t e r b u t said that to create a stir might be harmful to enrollments. Four W o o s t e r seniors agreed to talk to m e a b o u t their experience in the feminist classroom. Peter Stratton, w h o took W o m e n ' s Studies 110, was surprised o n the first day of class to hear the professor declare the class a "liberated z o n e " w h e r e "suppressed" w o m e n w o u l d be free to speak out o n any subject." Mr. Stratton says that at first h e w a s very profeminist: But over a n d over again w e h e a r d h o w awful m e n are. That there is n o p o i n t in caring for males, that r o m a n t i c involvement is futile. Of course, there are s o m e b a d m e n in society, b u t you also have to look

108

W H O

STOLE

FEMINISM?

at t h e g o o d o n e s . W h e n I first arrived at the College of Wooster, I accepted everything I w a s told. N o w s o m e of m y friends a n d I will use w o r d s like "freshman" a m o n g ourselves as a sign of resistance. A n o t h e r senior, Michael Millican, believes the College of W o o s t e r has "officially s u s p e n d e d the Bill of Rights." J o h n Cassais says that few stu­ d e n t s d a r e to q u e s t i o n the teacher's viewpoint. "The risks are too great." H e believes s t u d e n t s are being indoctrinated: "In the first-year seminar (not freshman s e m i n a r ) they n o w concentrate exclusively on race a n d g e n d e r issues. T h a t p r o g r a m resembles a university p r o g r a m a lot less t h a n it d o e s a r e e d u c a t i o n c a m p . " T h e s t u d e n t s read Racism and Sexism, a strongly ideological text edited b y Paula R o t h e n b e r g ( m e n t i o n e d previously as head of the N e w Jersey Project a n d m o d e r a t o r at the Parsippany conference). Defenders of this b o o k misdescribe it as a collection of "anti-discrimination court c a s e s . " In fact, less t h a n 2 0 p e r c e n t of it deals with cases. T h e b u l k of the b o o k is a miscellany of mostly b a d p o e t r y a n d tendentious, tedious articles, full of graceless j a r g o n , all w r i t t e n from a gender feminist perspective. It seems that R o t h e n b e r g s a w n o n e e d to provide a hearing for other views. Nor, since relatively few selections have literary or stylistic merit, did she a p p a r e n t l y feel responsible for offering the s t u d e n t s a text that w o u l d teach t h e m h o w to write well. At Wooster, however, Racism and Sexism was well suited to the p u r p o s e s of the feminist activists a n d their a d m i n ­ istrative allies. 37

In 1 9 9 0 , the college invited a roster of speakers to c a m p u s to reinforce the message in Ms. Rothenberg's text: the speakers included Ms. Rothen­ berg, Angela Davis, Ronald Takaki, Derrick Bell, a n d a lone "conserva­ tive," former N e w York m a y o r Ed Koch. Koch was duly hissed a n d booed by the "well-trained" s t u d e n t s . T h e intolerance at W o o s t e r for those w h o are critical of the gender feminist faith m a k e s the faculty very circumspect a b o u t voicing criticism, a n d this h a s r e n d e r e d t h e m virtually u n a b l e to o p p o s e any feminist p r o ­ g r a m they t h i n k u n w o r t h y of s u p p o r t . "I a m getting old a n d tired, a n d I d o n o t w a n t to get fired," said o n e professor: W h a t y o u have h e r e are a lot of s t u d e n t s a n d faculty w h o are very skeptical, b u t they are afraid to voice their reservations. O n the other h a n d , w o m e n ' s studies faculty are well organized a n d they have very effective strategies. First they co-ordinate with other d e p a r t m e n t s a n d offer a large g r o u p of courses, they bloc vote a n d get a n u m b e r of themselves o n educational policy committees. It's n o t h a r d these

THE

FEMINIST

CLASSROOM

109

days to get a powerful administrator b e h i n d you. For t h e m it is a way to m a k e a n a m e for themselves in college administration. They can say they initiated a n e w w o m e n ' s p r o g r a m . Many s t u d e n t s resent w o m e n ' s studies. They w a n t less ideology a n d m o r e objective c o n t e n t in their courses. O n e w o u l d think that the college administrations w o u l d b e sympathetic to their complaints. But a d m i n i s ­ trations have changed a lot in the last two decades. W e n o w find d e a n s a n d college p r e s i d e n t s a d m o n i s h i n g s t u d e n t s n o t to be taken in by claims of objectivity a n d the allegedly disinterested scholarship of p e d a g o g u e s w h o are fixed in the earlier phases of an untransformed curriculum. T h e m o r e enlightened administrators p r e a c h the virtues of a n e w pedagogy that i m p u g n s all objectivity, even that of science. In a convocation ad­ dress, Donald H a r w a r d , t h e n vice p r e s i d e n t of academic affairs at the College of Wooster, said, "A major intellectual revolution has occurred. Within the last two decades the . . . effort 'to objectify' fields of inquiry has been called into question by a challenge to the objectivity of science — t h e preeminent prototype." Invoking the authority of the feminist epistemologist Sandra H a r d i n g , a m o n g others, Dr. H a r w a r d informed the s t u d e n t s that "there is n o objec­ tivity, even in science." He then confided that "the n e w view of science, a n d thereby the n e w view of any field of intellectual inquiry, is only a whisker from irrationality a n d total skepticism. But fine lines are i m p o r ­ tant." By the e n d of his address, the s t u d e n t s were ready for the uplifting message that "learning a n d teaching have less to d o with truth, reality, a n d objectivity t h a n w e h a d a s s u m e d . " 38

Transformationists c a n n o t always rely o n a sympathetic faculty, b u t they can generally c o u n t on administrative s u p p o r t in furthering their projects. Schuster a n d Van Dyne, the Smith College transformation team, report that "informed administrators" are m o r e likely t h a n professors to acknowledge the n e e d for curricular transformation. At W o o s t e r College it was H a r w a r d w h o initiated the policy of having s t u d e n t s evaluate their teachers o n their sensitivity to g e n d e r issues. He has since gone o n to become president of Bates College in Maine. Students w h o have b e e n successfully trained in the feminist classroom to "become agents of change" m a y embarrass their m e n t o r s by practicing w h a t they have learned right o n the c a m p u s . At Simon's Rock of Bard College in Barrington, Massachusetts, twenty s t u d e n t s w h o were n o t sat­ isfied that the formal p r o c e d u r e s of the university adequately protected 39

110

W H O

STOLE

FEMINISM?

s t u d e n t s from sexual h a r a s s m e n t formed "defense guard" groups to take matters into their o w n h a n d s . "Defense guarding" consists of s u r r o u n d i n g a targeted professor in a n out-of-the-way place, charging h i m with sexual h a r a s s m e n t , a n d t h e n chanting, in unison, over a n d over again: "This will n o t b e tolerated. This h a s got to s t o p . " O n e of the participating s t u d e n t s told m e that if her g r o u p hears of behavior that s o u n d s sexist or harassing, they will directly a n d repeatedly confront the perpetrator. "Defense guarding is a very effective means of convincing s o m e o n e that w h a t they are doing is w r o n g . " I asked w h e t h e r defense g u a r d i n g w a s n o t unfairly intimidating to the accused a n d was told, " W h y w o u l d they b e intimidated unless they are guilty? If they have d o n e n o t h i n g , they w o u l d n o t b e intimidated." O n e foreign professor subjected to this treatment became physically ill. T h e administration finally acted by p u t t i n g sixteen "defense guards" u n d e r t e m p o r a r y s u s p e n s i o n . W o m e n ' s studies professor Patricia Sharp disclaimed all responsibility for the behavior of the defense guards; she insisted their attitude has n o t h i n g to d o w i t h feminism. Yet she expressed c o n c e r n that nearly half of the eighteen students in her feminist theory class w e r e m e m b e r s of the defense guard. T h a t the s t u d e n t s ' behavior s h o u l d disconcert even the feminist teach­ ers is u n d e r s t a n d a b l e . It is equally u n d e r s t a n d a b l e that the students feel betrayed. O n e m e m b e r of the defense g u a r d w h o was in Professor Sharp's class told m e that in w o m e n ' s studies courses w o m e n are encouraged to e m p o w e r themselves, b u t " w h e n w e p u t it into practice in a direct a n d effective w a y w e are s u s p e n d e d . " Simon's Rock is p a r t of Bard College. W h e n asked a b o u t the tactics of the defense g u a r d s , Bard p r e s i d e n t Leon Botstein said, "The best face to p u t o n it is that these k i d s d o n o t possess a sufficient historical m e m o r y to u n d e r s t a n d that s u c h behavior is extremely reminiscent of fascism, of b r o w n shirts; it is a classic g r o u p intimidation a n d public humiliation w h i c h is associated w i t h the thirties, a n d then finally with the Red Guards." Pennsylvania State College has a n alternative newspaper called the Lionhearted that routinely p o k e s fun at c a m p u s political correctness. In its April 12, 1 9 9 3 , issue, it satirized an op-ed piece by a radical feminist s t u d e n t , A m a n d a Martin, that a p p e a r e d in the college newspaper. Ms. Martin h a d recently a t t e n d e d the P e n n State antirape m a r c h , w h i c h she called a m a r c h of " 2 5 0 female warriors." She c o m p a r e d patriarchy to a bloodthirsty " m o n s t e r " that is devouring all w o m e n . To those w h o w o u l d criticize her, s h e issued a warning: "I'll kick your a s s . " Ms. Martin's article invited p a r o d y , a n d the Lionhearted obliged by 4 0

41

42

THE

FEMINIST

111

CLASSROOM

criticizing her h a r a n g u e a n d irreverently printing a cartoon image of h e r in a blue bikini. T h e c a m p u s feminist activists reacted by seizing a n d destroying all six t h o u s a n d copies of the Lionhearted. Several h u n d r e d were b u r n e d in a bonfire, late at night, outside the office of Ben Novak, a m e m b e r of the P e n n State b o a r d of trustees w h o serves as an advisor to the paper. Mike Abrams, the editor of the P e n n State school newspaper, the Daily Collegian, justified the b u r n i n g of n e w s p a p e r s : "The individual(s) w h o b u r n e d copies of the Lionhearted were d e m o n s t r a t i n g the s a m e freedom of expression that allowed the n e w s p a p e r to p r i n t its v i e w s . " D o n n a Hughes, a P e n n State w o m e n ' s studies professor, also saw n o t h i n g w r o n g with b u r n i n g n e w s p a p e r s , given the circumstances. After all, the cartoon p a r o d y was a form of harassment. "I t h i n k it was a n act of protest; considering the very personal, defaming attack on [Amanda Martin] in a full-page c a r t o o n . " It is difficult to estimate the p r o p o r t i o n of s t u d e n t s w h o b e c o m e c o m ­ mitted g e n d e r feminists. It is surely a minority. Even w h e n the conversion seems to go d e e p it m a y b e short-lived. But those w h o remain steadfast are tough a n d formidable. O n the other h a n d , s o m e of the "defectors" are just as formidable. Heather Hart, a recent graduate of Brandeis University, tells of h e r d i s e n c h a n t m e n t with academic feminism: 43

44

At Brandeis I discovered feminism. A n d I instantly b e c a m e a con­ vert. A n d I did well, writing brilliant p a p e r s in m y Myths of Patriar­ chy h u m a n i t i e s class, in w h i c h I likened m y fate as a w o m a n to other victims t h r o u g h o u t the ages. I j o i n e d the w o m e n ' s coalition, p r e a c h e d to a n y o n e w h o w o u l d listen, a n d even came close to cut­ ting m e n o u t of m y life entirely.

Ms. Hart, however, came from Montreal, w h e r e lipstick is in fashion, a n d she refused to give it u p : "They c o n d e m n e d m e from the get-go. They talked a b o u t feeling excluded from the male-dominated, patriarchal soci­ ety, a n d yet they were quick to dismiss m e as a boy-toy j u s t because I like the concept of decoration. . . . I was different a n d , therefore, a threat to the neat, closed, secret, h o m o g e n e o u s c o m m u n i t y . " Ms. Hart says that the near-ostracism she suffered k e p t h e r from enjoy­ ing the "strengths" that solidarity could have offered her; nevertheless, she accepted being disapproved of because she "did n o t wish to alienate" herself from those she felt allied to. T h e inevitable break came w h e n Eddie

112

W H O

STOLE

FEMINISM?

M u r p h y c a m e to Brandeis to give a concert: "I was intent on going . . . yet at a m e e t i n g w i t h m y fellow feminists I was informed that we were boycotting the s h o w as M u r p h y w a s a h o m o p h o b i c , misogynistic racist." Ms. H a r t crossed the picket line a n d h a d the revelation that in m a n y ways h e r sisters in w o m e n ' s studies a n d the w o m e n ' s center were "frighteningly reminiscent" of the forces "they claimed to be fighting all those years." S o m e w h o later defected look back with resentment o n the feminists w h o h e l d t h e m in thrall. Annie Ballad, a 1988 graduate of Harvard, felt h e r private life to b e intolerably incorrect, being in conflict with w h a t she was learning in the feminist classroom. She h a d been p e r s u a d e d that heterosexual lovemaking was basically a violation: "While taking w o m e n ' s studies (at Harvard) w i t h a separatist teaching fellow there, I nearly h a d a n e r v o u s b r e a k d o w n because I t h o u g h t m y boyfriend of five years was raping m e every time h e p e n e t r a t e d m e . " She set out to "deprogram" herself, using a t e c h n i q u e of linguistic reversal that is k n o w n to be effec­ tive. Ms. Ballad h a d b e e n trained to certain locutions, avoiding those that g e n d e r feminists d e e m c o n d e s c e n d i n g to w o m e n . She began to force herself to b e "incorrect"; "I insisted o n calling w o m e n 'girls,' 'chicks,' a n d 'babes.' " After a s h o r t while she felt free to enjoy her sexually incorrect life. Irreverence is b o t h a n antidote a n d an immunizer. At strongly feminist Vassar College, t w o j u n i o r s , Regina Peters a n d Jennifer Lewis, founded the " F u t u r e Housewives of America." At first the g r o u p took themselves in a t o n g u e - i n - c h e e k spirit. O n e of their earliest projects (foiled at the last m i n u t e ) w a s to s n e a k into the messy w o m e n ' s center late at night a n d clean it u p , leaving a n o t e signed " C o m p l i m e n t s of the Future Housewives of America." S t u d e n t g r o u p s are routinely given m o d e s t funds for r u n n i n g expenses: as a w o m e n ' s g r o u p , F u t u r e Housewives was entitled to apply for funds t h r o u g h the Feminist Alliance. Peters a n d Lewis showed u p at an Alliance m e e t i n g a n d a n n o u n c e d the formation of their group. They told a b o u t their first t w o p l a n n e d activities: to publish their o w n cook­ b o o k a n d to h o s t a T u p p e r w a r e party. "I have never seen anything like it," said Peters later. "Fifty s t u n n e d w o m e n gaping in disbelief." They w e r e n o t funded a n d have since disbanded.

C a m p u s feminists have m a d e the American c a m p u s a less h a p p y place, having successfully b r o w b e a t e n a once o u t s p o k e n a n d free faculty. O n e of the s a d d e s t things a b o u t their influence is their effect on pedagogy

THE

FEMINIST

CLASSROOM

113

outside their o w n classrooms. They have raised a generation of s t u d e n t watchdogs ever o n the l o o k o u t for sexist bias in all its insidious manifes­ tations. Students are careful rather than carefree. H u m o r is g u a r d e d . M a n y teachers n o w practice a k i n d of defensive pedagogy. In December 1 9 8 9 I received a p h o n e call from a m a n w h o told m e h e was a graduate s t u d e n t at the University of Minnesota. H e asked m e to look into s o m e "frightening" things c a m p u s feminists were u p to. H e m e n t i o n e d the Scandinavian studies d e p a r t m e n t . H e told m e h e did n o t w a n t to give m e his n a m e because h e felt h e w o u l d b e hurt: "They are powerful, they are organized, a n d they are vindictive." The University of Minnesota is heavily "colonized." In addition to its W o m e n ' s Studies d e p a r t m e n t , it has a Center for Advanced Feminist Studies, the Center for W o m e n in International Development, a W o m e n ' s Center, a Young W o m e n ' s Association, the Center for C o n t i n u i n g E d u ­ cation for W o m e n , a n d the H u m p h r e y Center o n W o m e n a n d Public Policy. T h e feminist j o u r n a l Signs is h o u s e d there, a n d the radical feminist review Hurricane Alice is associated w i t h the English d e p a r t m e n t . T h e r e is a Sexual Violence Program, as well as a C o m m i s s i o n o n W o m e n . After a few p h o n e calls I found s o m e faculty m e m b e r s w h o w o u l d speak u p a b o u t the " c a m p u s feminists," p r o v i d e d a n o n y m i t y was p r o m ­ ised. O n e professor of social science told m e : W e have a h a r d e n e d a n d embittered core of radical feminists. These w o m e n have b e e n victorious in court: they have the ear of several powerful regents a n d administrators. They call the shots. Every­ w h e r e you look there are feminist faculty m e m b e r s c o n c e r n e d to divest d e p a r t m e n t s of the w h i t e male viewpoint. If you question this, you are labeled a sexist. It is a n i g h t m a r e . At faculty meetings we have learned to speak in code: you say things that alert other faculty m e m b e r s that you d o n o t agree with the radical feminists, b u t you say n o t h i n g that could bring a charge of g e n d e r insensitivity. People are o u t for control a n d power. I did n o t fully u n d e r s t a n d w h a t was h a p p e n i n g until I read Nien Cheng's Life and Death in Shanghai. Professor N o r m a n F r u m a n , a distinguished scholar in the English d e ­ partment, was o u t s p o k e n : If you resist feminists you are liable to the charge of sexism. You then m a y b e socially or professionally isolated. W i t h the rise of poststructuralism, Derrida, Foucault, Althusser, you have the basis

114

W H O

STOLE

FEMINISM?

for a Stalinist position. M a n y faculty are n o w teaching students that there is n o objectivity. All is subjective. This is their rallying cry. All of the literary masterpieces, including the very notion of aesthetic quality, are said to b e a m e a n s of patriarchal control. I t h e n called Professor Lois Erickson, a feminist activist. She explained w h y the two m e n I h a d s p o k e n to w o u l d of course be "hostile a n d defensive": It is a n e w era at the University of Minnesota. O u r shared reality has b e e n t h r o u g h a m a s c u l i n e lens. I s p e n t a sabbatical at Harvard work­ ing w i t h Carol Gilligan w h e r e I learned to h o n o r the inner feminine voice. Until w e can balance the feminine a n d the masculine, peace is n o t possible. For this w e n e e d a strong feminist studies depart­ m e n t . . . . W e have at least three h u n d r e d w o m e n o n c a m p u s em­ p o w e r e d by a favorable court ruling. This gives us a strong collective voice. S o m e m e n a n d w o m e n are threatened because they fear their feminine side. Having h e a r d " b o t h sides" of the feminist question at Minnesota, I felt ready to tackle the mystery of the Scandinavian studies department. It t u r n e d o u t n o t to b e a mystery at a l l — o n l y a disturbing example of extreme feminist vigilance. O n April 12, 1 9 8 9 , four female graduate students filed sexual harass­ m e n t charges against all six t e n u r e d m e m b e r s of the Scandinavian studies d e p a r t m e n t (five m e n a n d o n e w o m a n ) . T h e professors were called to Dean Fred L u k e r m a n ' s office, notified of the charges and, according to the accused, told they'd better get themselves lawyers. In a letter sent to Professor William Mischler of Scandinavian studies, Ms. Patricia Mullen, the university officer for sexual harassment, informed Mischler that h e h a d b e e n accused of sexual harassment a n d w o u l d be r e p o r t e d to the p r o v o s t unless h e r e s p o n d e d within ten days. Similar letters w e r e sent to the o t h e r five professors. Mischler's letters contained n o specific facts that could be remotely considered to describe sexual h a r a s s m e n t . W h e n Mischler m a d e further inquiries, h e discovered h e h a d b e e n accused of giving a n a r r o w a n d "patriarchal" interpretation of Isaak Dinesen's w o r k , of n o t having read a novel a student d e e m e d important, a n d of having greeted a s t u d e n t in a less t h a n friendly m a n n e r . Two of Mischler's colleagues w e r e accused of harassing the plaintiffs by not hav­ ing given t h e m higher grades. T h e plaintiffs h a d d r a w n u p a list of punitive d e m a n d s , a m o n g them:

THE

FEMINIST

CLASSROOM

115

1. the denial of merit p a y for a p e r i o d of n o t less than five years; 2. m o n t h l y sexual harassment w o r k s h o p s for all Scandinavian core faculty for at least twelve m o n t h s ; a n d 3. a n n u a l sexual h a r a s s m e n t w o r k s h o p s for all Scandinavian core fac­ ulty, adjunct faculty, visiting faculty, graduate assistants, readergraders, a n d graduate students. Lacking a n y s u p p o r t from the administration whatsoever, the profes­ sors were forced to seek legal counsel. O n O c t o b e r 13, six m o n t h s later, all charges against four of the accused were d r o p p e d . N o explanation w a s offered. A few m o n t h s later, the charges against the remaining two w e r e d r o p p e d , again w i t h o u t explanation. All of t h e m are still s h a k e n from w h a t they describe as a Kafkaesque ordeal. " W h e n I saw the charges," says Professor Allen Simpson, "I panicked. It's the m o s t terrifying thing . . . they w a n t m e fired. It cost m e two t h o u s a n d dollars to have m y response drafted. I can't afford justice." Professor Mischler requested that the contents of the complaints b e m a d e public to the Minnesota c o m m u n i t y . But, according to the Minne­ sota Daily, Patricia Mullen o p p o s e d disclosure on the g r o u n d s that "it w o u l d d a m p e n p e o p l e from c o m i n g f o r w a r d . " My efforts to reach s o m e o n e w h o could give m e the administration's side of the story w e r e n o t successful. Ms. Mullen declined to speak w i t h me. Fred L u k e r m a n , w h o was d e a n of the College of Liberal Arts at the time, also p r o v e d to b e inaccessible. I finally did talk to a d e a n w h o assured m e h e was very supportive of feminist causes on c a m p u s , b u t that he believed the Scandinavian studies affair was indeed a "witch h u n t . " "But please d o n o t use m y n a m e , " h e implored. 45

More recently, at the University of N e w H a m p s h i r e , Professor D o n a l d Silva was trying to dramatize the need for focus in writing essays. Unfor­ tunately for h i m , h e used sexual images to m a k e his point: "Focus [in writing] is like sex. You seek a target. You zero in o n y o u r subject. You move from side to side. You close in o n the subject. You bracket the subject a n d center o n it. Focus connects experience a n d language. You a n d the subject b e c o m e o n e . " During a n o t h e r lecture h e graphically illustrated the way s o m e similes work, saying, "Belly d a n c i n g is like Jell-O on a plate, with a vibrator underneath." The vast majority of his large lecture class found these remarks i n n o c ­ uous. Six female s t u d e n t s filed formal harassment charges—claiming his 4 6

116

W H O

STOLE

FEMINISM?

w o r d s h a d d e m e a n e d w o m e n a n d created a hostile a n d intimidating en­ v i r o n m e n t , S H A R P P — t h e Sexual H a r a s s m e n t a n d Rape Prevention Pro­ g r a m o n the N e w H a m p s h i r e c a m p u s — t o o k u p their cause. Professor Silva w a s found guilty of having used "two sexually explicit examples" that "a reasonable female s t u d e n t w o u l d find . . . offensive, intimidating, a n d c o n t r i b u t i n g to a hostile e n v i r o n m e n t . " He was ordered to apologize in writing for having created a "hostile a n d offensive academic environ­ m e n t . " H e w a s fined t w o t h o u s a n d dollars a n d formally r e p r i m a n d e d . H e is n o w required to a t t e n d counseling sessions by a therapist approved by the university, a n d to r e p o r t o n his progress in therapy to his p r o g r a m director at t h e university. Silva has courageously refused to c o m p l y — a n d has b e e n s u s p e n d e d from teaching w i t h o u t pay. The American Associa­ tion of University Professors w r o t e a letter w a r n i n g the university that any sanctions t a k e n against Silva were a threat to academic freedom. At a m e e t i n g of m o r e t h a n sixty retired University of N e w H a m p s h i r e profes­ sors, they reviewed the case a n d voted u n a n i m o u s l y to c o n d e m n the university's actions. But so far SHARPP a n d the University of N e w H a m p ­ shire have prevailed. Silva's a t t e m p t to get his side of the story heard is costing h i m t h o u s a n d s in legal fees, a n d it m a y cost h i m his career. O n e expects faculty to protest e n c r o a c h m e n t s on their traditional free­ d o m s a n d prerogatives. O n e w o u l d expect t h e m to be outraged at the "witch h u n t s " (and to express their outrage before they retire). But what sense of outrage there is c o m e s , instead, from the gender feminists w h o , true to their self-image as "victims," urge gender feminists in the univer­ sities to b e p e r m a n e n t l y alert for a n y signs of masculinist attempts to restore the status q u o . Schuster a n d Van Dyne have charts a n d graphs outlining strategies for p r e p a r e d n e s s . T h e Ford-funded National Council for Research o n W o m e n is n o w raising m o n e y for w h a t it calls a "rapid r e s p o n s e fund." As it explains in a fundraising letter dated December 8, 1 9 9 3 , the fund will enable it to act quickly to c o m b a t adverse publicity for s u c h things as "feminist c u r r i c u l u m reforms." Fears of resistance a n d backlash motivate preemptive strikes at critics a n d potential critics. T h e M o d e r n Language Association Committee on the Status of W o m e n has recently p r o p o s e d "antifeminist harassment" a n d "intellectual h a r a s s m e n t " as n e w a n d official categories of victimiza­ tion. Examples of intellectual h a r a s s m e n t include: 47

• easy dismissal of feminist writers, journals, a n d presses • a u t o m a t i c d e p r e c a t i o n of feminist w o r k as "narrow," "partisan," a n d "lacking in rigor" • malicious h u m o r directed against f e m i n i s t s 48

THE

FEMINIST

CLASSROOM

117

Toni M c N a r o n , professor of English at the University of Minnesota, expresses the confidence of m a n y w h e n she predicts in the Women's Review of Books that g e n d e r feminist academics will transform the "aca­ demic establishment" in the n i n e t i e s . She m a k e s the customary c o m p a r ­ ison between recent feminist theory a n d the scientific b r e a k t h r o u g h m a d e by Copernicus. But h e r exultant m o o d is laced with gloom. She r e m i n d s us that " p r o p o n e n t s of C o p e r a i c a n theory were d r u m m e d out of their universities or, in extreme cases, e x c o m m u n i c a t e d , jailed, a n d even killed." Acknowledging that c o n t e m p o r a r y feminists are n o t likely to suf­ fer the m o r e extreme retributions, she nevertheless w a r n s of i m p e n d i n g attacks. She exhorts feminist academics to "stand a n d resist wherever possible the onslaughts" of those w h o find fault with the feminist agenda. Professor McNaron's remarks were b r o u g h t to m y attention because she m e n t i o n s m e as o n e of the persecutors of the n e w Copernicans. By n o w , feminists have a well-deserved reputation for being good at dishing it out b u t completely u n a b l e to take it. Many are k n o w n to deal with o p p o n e n t s by ad h o m i n e m or ad feminam counterattacks: accusa­ tions of misogyny, racism, h o m o p h o b i a , or opposition to diversity or inclusiveness. Some w o u l d - b e critics fear for their very j o b s . In these circumstances a critic m a y find himself s u d d e n l y alone. O t h e r s , watching, learn to keep a l o w profile. It is n o w quite clear that a self-protecting American faculty has been seriously derelict in its d u t y to defend the liberal traditions of the American academy. Students are q u i c k to learn that o p e n criticism of the feminist class­ r o o m will n o t w i n t h e m s u p p o r t from teachers w h o privately agree w i t h them. The lesson they learn from the cravenness of their teachers is never lost o n them: k e e p clear of controversy. Conformity is safest: practice it. That is a terrible lesson to convey to one's s t u d e n t s a n d the antithesis of what the college experience s h o u l d be. In the story "The Emperor's N e w Clothes," the boy at the p a r a d e w h o dared to declare that the e m p e r o r h a d n o t h i n g o n was immediately j o i n e d by his elders, w h o were grateful that s o m e o n e h a d given voice to that innocent a n d obvious truth. Sadly, the story is n o t true to life. In real life the boy is m o r e likely to b e s h u n t e d aside by parading functionaries for failing to perceive the emperor's finery. In real life, the spectators d o n o t take the boy's side. At Minnesota, N o r t h w e s t e r n , Michigan, Wooster, N e w Hampshire, Harvard, a n d o n c a m p u s e s across the country, the g e n d e r feminists are unchallenged because the faculties have so far found it politic to look the other way. 49

Chapter 6

A Bureaucracy of One's Own

If there is one word that sums up everything that has gone wrong since the war, it's

"workshop."

— A T T R I B U T E D T O KINGSLEY AMIS

T h a t the g e n d e r feminist perspective is comparable to a Copernican revolution is o p e n to question. A revolution has u n d o u b t e d l y taken place, b u t it is m o r e a bureaucratic t h a n an intellectual one. In 1 9 8 2 Peggy M c i n t o s h , the associate director of the Wellesley College Center for Research o n W o m e n , gave a prescient a n d influential keynote address to an a u d i e n c e of feminist scholars in Geneva, Indiana: I t h i n k it is n o t so i m p o r t a n t for u s to get w o m e n ' s bodies in high places, because that doesn't necessarily help at all in social change. But to p r o m o t e w o m e n w h o carry a n e w consciousness of h o w the m o u n t a i n s t r o n g h o l d s of w h i t e m e n need valley values—this will change society. . . . Such p e r s o n s placed high u p in existing p o w e r structures can really m a k e a difference. 1

Ms. Mcintosh's beguiling m e t a p h o r s are m a t c h e d by her unerring u n ­ d e r s t a n d i n g of h o w to gain control of bureaucracies, a talent that has h e l p e d to m a k e h e r o n e of the most influential a n d effective leaders a m o n g a c a d e m i c transformationists. T h e gender feminists that Dr. Mc-

A

BUREAUCRACY

OF

ONE'S

OWN

119

Intosh addressed took h e r advice to heart. So did m a n y others. Feminist academics have w o r k e d h a r d a n d successfully to get p e o p l e " w h o carry a n e w consciousness" into administrative positions at every academic level. These n o w d o their best to ensure that n e w a p p o i n t m e n t s are n o t o u t of line. To criticize feminist ideology is n o w h a z a r d o u s in the extreme, a n d even to have a "clean" record is n o longer sufficient. Aspirants to univer­ sity presidencies, d e a n s h i p s , p r o g r a m directorships, a n d other key posts are aware that they will p r o b a b l y have to s h o w a record of d e m o n s t r a t e d sympathy w i t h g e n d e r feminist doctrines a n d policies. T h e same is rapidly becoming true for faculty a p p o i n t m e n t s . T h e Association of American Colleges (AAC), itself o n e of the " p o w e r structures" that have b e e n colonized by w o m e n of the right conscious­ ness, disseminates a widely used questionnaire entitled "It's All in W h a t You Ask: Questions for Search C o m m i t t e e s to Use." Prospective candi­ dates for faculty or administrative positions are asked s u c h questions as these: • H o w have you d e m o n s t r a t e d y o u r c o m m i t m e n t to w o m e n ' s issues in your current position? [Lead question] • W h a t is y o u r relationship to the w o m e n ' s center? • H o w d o you incorporate n e w scholarship o n w o m e n into u n d e r g r a d ­ uate coursework? Into y o u r research? Into graduate coursework? W i t h y o u r graduate students? H o w d o you help y o u r colleagues d o so? • H o w d o you deal w i t h backlash a n d denial? The type of screening p r o m o t e d by the AAC p r o v e d effective at the University of Maryland in its last presidential search. Speaking at the (self-styled) "historic" forum entitled "Transforming the Knowledge Base," Betty Schmitz, a n o t h e r major figure on the transformation circuit, described h o w the search committee h a d questioned all the candidates about their c o m m i t m e n t to feminist transformation projects. Ms. Schmitz was pleased to report: "Every single candidate was p r e p a r e d for the q u e s ­ tion. Two h a d funded p r o g r a m s o n their o w n campuses, a n d the third had actually b e e n involved in a p r o j e c t . " Ms. Schmitz's confidence in the screening p r o c e d u r e was n o t mis­ placed. Shortly after his a p p o i n t m e n t , President William Kirwan c a m e through with $ 5 0 0 , 0 0 0 of the university's funds for a c u r r i c u l u m trans­ formation project, w i t h o u t going t h r o u g h the faculty senate to d o so. Curricular matters are traditionally the province of the faculty or o n e of its representative bodies, s u c h as the faculty senate. Changes in the 2

120

W H O

STOLE

FEMINISM?

c u r r i c u l u m n o r m a l l y involve intensive scrutiny a n d extensive debate fol­ lowed b y a vote. Kirwan's action seems most unusual. Ms. Schmitz, w h o h a d b e c o m e Kirwan's assistant, reported h o w the president h a d to face a lot of "backlash" from the faculty a n d h o w she helped the president by giving h i m a r g u m e n t s to cope w i t h the p r o b l e m . She advised her sister transformationists to expect similar situations: "You will also have to p r e p a r e y o u r a d m i n i s t r a t o r s a b o u t w h a t is going to h a p p e n . . . . It is w o n ­ derful to b e able to s u p p l y a p p r o p r i a t e w o r d s to the head of an institution, a n d it is i m p o r t a n t that p e o p l e knowledgeable a b o u t the issues a n d wellversed in the language b e in key positions to d o s o . " Faculty resistance does n o t faze Ms. Schmitz: "Speaking the unspeakable is a c o m p o n e n t of d i s r u p t i n g the patriarchy. T h e anger or disbelief that surfaces w h e n fac­ ulty are forced to confront bias as a systemic, pervasive p r o b l e m is the necessary first stage in the change p r o c e s s . " Ms. Schmitz, w h o is better k n o w n as an activist than as a contributor to e d u c a t i o n theory or epistemology, is a confident apparatchik w h o goes a b o u t applying the insights of feminist theorists like Peggy Mcintosh a n d Elizabeth M i n n i c h to the u r g e n t project of "breaking the disciplines" a n d transforming the c u r r i c u l u m . In these practical tasks she reports gratifying progress: A "heartening t r e n d is the degree to w h i c h state monies a n d internal funds are b e i n g placed into c u r r i c u l u m transformation," she says, boasting of h e r success in establishing "a n e w position for a p e r m a n e n t director of the c u r r i c u l u m transformation project" at the University of Maryland. 3

4

5

I dwell o n Ms. Schmitz n o t because she is so u n u s u a l (though she is very g o o d at w h a t s h e does) b u t precisely because she is representative of the n e w b r e e d of b u r e a u c r a t i c feminist. Skilled w o r k s h o p p e r s , networkers, a n d fundraisers, they m o v e within the corridors of academic p o w e r w i t h ease a n d effectiveness, occasionally supplying "appropriate w o r d s " to those in p o w e r as n e e d e d to further the goals of the n e w pedagogy a n d to c o u n t e r criticism. Schmitz is a great admirer of Dr. Mcintosh, b o t h for h e r insights into feminist pedagogical theory a n d for her prescient politi­ cal analysis of h o w to get a n d h o l d p o w e r in the academy and, once attained, h o w to use it to further a n agenda of transformation. Since Maryland, Ms. Schmitz has m o v e d to the state of Washington, w h e r e again s h e is w o r k i n g to install the a p p a r a t u s of transformation. Here is m o r e of h e r astute advice to her sisters in the transformation m o v e m e n t : " W e . . . have to build o u r message into the mission of the institution, a n d w e have to h e l p those in the institution think about the future. . . . W e have to see w h a t the organization is aspiring to be a n d

A

BUREAUCRACY

OF

ONE'S

121

OWN

m a k e sure that as the sentences articulating those goals are being formed, we provide language that informs t h e m . " Ms. Schmitz has written a h a n d b o o k for transformationists. In it she uses Peggy Mcintosh's five-phase theory to grade teachers a n d their classes. Phase o n e , you will r e m e m b e r , is the lowest stage of curricular consciousness. Phase five c a n n o t b e attained in today's culture, b u t p h a s e four, in w h i c h "classes are w o n d r o u s a n d healing," is attainable. Even so, says Ms. Schmitz, "the a m o u n t of time it will take a given individual to reach Phase 4 is n o t p r e d i c t a b l e . " Schmitz refers to the five phases as if they were as scientifically established as the phases of the m o o n . H e r h a n d b o o k contains pointers o n h o w to deal w i t h "hostile" faculty "with an unwavering belief in traditional s t a n d a r d s of excellence." These are the "respected scholars," an " u n r e a c h a b l e " g r o u p of "Phase 1 t h i n k e r s . " Ac­ cording to Schmitz: 6

7

8

These faculty m a y also b e respected scholars in their field a n d p o p ­ ular teachers. T h e y have n o reason to change. If faced w i t h pressure from administrators or project leaders, they will raise issues of aca­ demic freedom, the place of ideology in the curriculum, a n d their right to d e t e r m i n e w h a t is to be taught in their classes. 9

Ms. Schmitz seems cynically aware that, despite their protests over the erosion of academic freedoms, the respected scholars n o longer have the p o w e r they once h a d , a n d she reports that m o s t project directors d o n o t consider it " w o r t h the effort to target this g r o u p specifically." Few o n the faculty offer resistance to curricular change, n o r d o m a n y raise issues of academic freedom. To get t h e m to cooperate actively in their o w n "reeducation," Ms. Schmitz a n d h e r colleagues candidly rec­ o m m e n d financial incentives: " H o w m u c h faculty reeducation is possible w i t h o u t benefit of m o n e y for stipends? O u r recent experience with re­ gional consortia for c u r r i c u l u m integration suggests that even small a m o u n t s of seed m o n e y for initiating projects can result in concrete change." Large a m o u n t s of m o n e y w o r k even better. At Maryland, for the past several s u m m e r vacations, the administration has offered faculty m e m b e r s a percentage of their a n n u a l salary to a t t e n d seminars o n c u r r i c u l u m transformation. In 1 9 9 1 , for example, the classes m e t twice a w e e k d u r i n g July a n d August a n d faculty received 2 0 p e r c e n t of their salary. A s s u m i n g an average $ 4 0 , 0 0 0 a n n u a l salary, this w o u l d m e a n that w o r k s h o p p e r s earned a b o u t $ 5 0 0 for each class they attended. 10

11

122

W H O

STOLE

FEMINISM?

Professor H e r m a n Belz, a distinguished political scientist, noted with alarm that c u r r i c u l u m transformation was being i m p l e m e n t e d at Mary­ land, a l t h o u g h it h a d never b e e n voted o n or endorsed by the faculty. Not having access to the administration's channels of distribution, h e p u b ­ lished his misgivings in the faculty newspaper:

Faculty w h o are c o n c e r n e d to preserve a n d maintain intellectual integrity a n d freedom of academic inquiry in the University should e x a m i n e carefully the r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s of the [curriculum transfor­ m a t i o n c o m m i t t e e ] report. T h e y s h o u l d b e aware of the potential threat to disciplinary a u t o n o m y that it contains. A n d they should take steps to b r i n g the subject of c u r r i c u l u m transformation into the fresh air a n d o p e n forums of p u b l i c debate, w h e r e t h r o u g h the forms a n d p r o c e d u r e s of critical deliberation w e govern ourselves as an academic c o m m u n i t y . 12

At the "historic" p a n e l discussion, Ms. Schmitz w o u l d refer to protests in the school p a p e r as "hysterical a n d extreme" b a c k l a s h . She assured her sister panelists that transformation at Maryland w o u l d be unaffected. "But w e . . . have to k e e p educating the leadership." Ms. Schmitz b e c a m e k n o w n to the Middle Tennessee State University faculty w h e n , u n d e r the s p o n s o r s h i p of the Tennessee Board of Regents, she c o n d u c t e d a c u r r i c u l u m transformation w o r k s h o p in February 1 9 9 0 . . In M a r c h 1 9 9 0 , the Advisory C o m m i t t e e for Curricular Transformation b e c a m e p r o m i n e n t . This c o m m i t t e e , w h i c h h a d been given n o charge by the faculty senate, asserted that its authority to transform the curriculum s t e m m e d from the regents: "This committee was formed in response to a m a n d a t e from the Board of Regents based o n the findings published in the 1 9 8 9 statewide r e p o r t o n the Status of W o m e n in A c a d e m e . " P u r s u i n g w h a t it t o o k to b e its m a n d a t e , the Advisory Committee for Curricular Transformation sent a lengthy (eighty-seven-item) question­ naire to the Middle Tennessee State faculty querying t h e m in detail a b o u t h o w they r a n their classes a n d asking questions designed to test their level of feminist consciousness. T h e advisory committee asked the profes­ sors to analyze their assigned readings, their lectures, a n d their audiovi­ sual material a n d to reply to questions like " H o w often were the p r o n o u n s 'she' or 'her' used? H o w often did examples relate only to typical male experience or use only males in examples? H o w often are w o m e n s h o w n in positions of p o w e r or action? H o w often are m e n s h o w n in familial or d o m e s t i c roles?" O n e section asks w h e t h e r the instructors agree, agree 13

14

A

BUREAUCRACY

OF

ONE'S

123

OWN

strongly, disagree, or disagree strongly w i t h s u c h statements as "My stu­ dents learned a b o u t h o w w o m e n feel a b o u t their lives. My s t u d e n t s learned a b o u t changing gender roles." O n e section entitled "Overall Course Evaluation" could b e used to s h o w w h e r e the professor r a n k s o n Peggy Mcintosh's five-phase scale. The pertinent question is: Having looked at various c o m p o n e n t s of y o u r course, n o w look at y o u r course as a whole. H o w w o u l d you classify this course? 1. neither m e n n o r w o m e n were i n c l u d e d in this course 2. w o m a n l e s s — n o m e n t i o n of w o m e n at all [a yes to N o . 1 or N o . 2 w o u l d signal to the interrogator that the r e s p o n d e n t is in the first phase] 3. the only w o m e n depicted were treated as exceptional w o m e n or as anomalies [a s e c o n d or third phaser] 4. w o m e n a n d m e n were described b o t h separately a n d comparatively, stressing inter-relationships [a p h a s e four lateral thinker] Needless to say, m o s t Tennessee professors w e r e p r o b a b l y u n a w a r e that their answers in this section could b e indicative of their place o n that critical scale. Actually, the faculty "scored" quite well o n the feminist consciousness scale. Feminine p r o n o u n s w e r e used j u s t as m u c h or more t h a n male p r o n o u n s in the readings. Instructors reported they "rarely" used exam­ ples that related only to males. Females were m o r e often the m a i n focus of films a n d videos s h o w n in class a n d a p p e a r e d in two-thirds of the textbook illustrations. Professors reported that m e n a n d w o m e n s p o k e u p in class at the s a m e rate b u t that m e n were slightly m o r e likely to b e interrupted by other s t u d e n t s t h a n w e r e the w o m e n . More t h a n half the r e s p o n d e n t s reached "phase four" o n Ms. Mcintosh's s c a l e . Nevertheless, m a n y faculty felt the interrogations were fatuous a n d irritating, a n d they began to s h o w s o m e fight. T h e senate i n t r o d u c e d a resolution against a n y language that " m a n d a t e s revision, transformation, integration, or restructuring of the c u r r i c u l u m . " T h o u g h that passed unanimously, the advisory committee ignored it. A n e w a n d equally in­ trusive questionnaire was s o o n o n the way, a n d the regents a n d the Middle Tennessee State University administrators were s p e n d i n g m o r e university funds o n w o r k s h o p s a n d other transformation activities. I called Middle Tennessee State's vice p r e s i d e n t of academic affairs, J a m e s H i n d m a n , the administrator in charge of the transformation p r o j ­ ect. At first h e expressed e n t h u s i a s m for it, b u t w h e n he sensed I did n o t 15

124

W H O

STOLE

FEMINISM?

share his e n t h u s i a s m , h e b e c a m e defensive a n d claimed never to have seen the questionnaire. "It c a m e from s o m e outside organization. I h a d n o t h i n g to d o w i t h it," h e said. H e said h e k n e w very little about the details of the transformation project a n d advised m e to speak to the w o m e n ' s studies staff. W h e n I a s k e d h i m a b o u t the w o r k s h o p s , conferences, a n d other trans­ formationist activities, h e got angry. " W h o are you? You have n o right to interview m e or q u o t e m e . " H e s l a m m e d the p h o n e d o w n . I have since sent in a freedom-of-information form asking a b o u t the funding for the transformation activities at Middle Tennessee State University, with cop­ ies to the attorney general's office a n d the Tennessee Board of Regents. T h e citizens of Tennessee have the right to k n o w j u s t h o w m u c h of their m o n e y is being s p e n t to have their college curriculum transformed to the liking of Ms. S t i m p s o n , Ms. Schmitz, Ms. Mcintosh, Ms. Schuster, Ms. Van D y n e , a n d Ms. Minnich. Vice President H i n d m a n w a s right a b o u t o n e thing. T h e questionnaire c a m e from elsewhere: it w a s in fact designed by the Association of Amer­ ican Colleges (AAC), a n organization funded by d u e s from most of Amer­ ica's colleges. T h e AAC u s e d to b e a nonpolitical professional organization devoted to m o n i t o r i n g the scholarly s t a n d a r d s of American colleges. These days, t h o u g h , it p r o d u c e s an impressive n u m b e r of surveys, pack­ ets, tracts, a n d b r o c h u r e s that p r o m o t e g e n d e r feminist causes in the American a c a d e m y . A m o n g their m a n y feminist publications are "Success a n d Survival Strategies for W o m e n Faculty Members," "Students at the Center: Feminist Assessment," "Evaluating Courses for Inclusion of N e w Scholarship o n W o m e n , " a n d "The C a m p u s Climate Revisited: Chilly for W o m e n Faculty, Administrators, a n d Graduate Students."

T h e Association of American Colleges was founded in 1915 to "im­ p r o v e u n d e r g r a d u a t e liberal education," a task to w h i c h it was conven­ tionally faithful until fairly recently. As late as 1 9 8 5 , an AAC report defended the college major a n d s p o k e of "the j o y of mastery, the thrill of m o v i n g forward in a formal b o d y of k n o w l e d g e a n d gaining s o m e effective control over it, integrating it, p e r h a p s even m a k i n g s o m e small contribu­ tion to it." Several w o m e n ' s studies l u m i n a r i e s — J o h n n e l l a Butler, Sandra Coyner, Marlene Longenecker, a n d Caryn McTighe M u s i l — f o u n d this remark offensive. In a scathing r e p o r t to the AAC, m a d e possible by "generous funding" from t h e cooperative Ford F o u n d a t i o n a n d the F u n d for the

A

BUREAUCRACY

OF

ONE'S

125

OWN

I m p r o v e m e n t of Post-Secondary Education (FIPSE), they "deconstructed" the offending passage: A feminist analysis of this rhetoric reveals . . . an analogy b e t w e e n knowledge a n d sexual subjugation . . . , an idea of learning as m a s ­ tery or control. Clearly e m b e d d e d . . . are u n c o n s c i o u s a n d r o c e n t r i c a s s u m p t i o n s of d o m i n a n c e a n d s u b o r d i n a t i o n b e t w e e n the k n o w e r a n d the k n o w n , a s s u m p t i o n s that too readily bring to m i n d the traditional relationship of m e n to w o m e n ; of the colonizers to the colonized; indeed, of the masters to the slaves. Such phallocentric m e t a p h o r s . . . [are not] the accidental usage of o n e report; they replicate the d o m i n a n t discourses of W e s t e r n empiricism that w o m ­ en's studies . . . c r i t i q u e s . 16

T h e AAC is n o t likely to offend again. Even as it was being so sharply rebuked, the AAC w a s targeted for a g e n d e r feminist makeover. These days, it is an i m p o r t a n t resource for transformationists, a n d Caryn McTighe Musil is o n e of its senior fellows. She a n d Johnnella Butler, the feminist scholar from W a s h i n g t o n University, are playing a principal role in the newly inaugurated $4.5 million AAC transformationist p r o j e c t . As for Ms. Schmitz, she is n o w a senior associate for the Cultural Pluralism Project at the W a s h i n g t o n Center at Evergreen State College, where, a m p l y funded by the Ford F o u n d a t i o n a n d the state g o v e r n m e n t , she oversees the transformation project in several universities a n d colleges in the state. She, too, has recently served as a senior fellow at the AAC. The AAC is n o t the only s u c h organization to have caught the transfor­ mationist fever. G r o u p s like the American Association of University W o m e n a n d the prestigious American Council o n Education n o w take it for granted that American education m u s t be radically transformed. C o n ­ sider, for example, this p r o g r a m m a t i c statement in a report s p o n s o r e d by the American Council o n Education entitled "The N e w Agenda of W o m e n for Higher Education": 17

W h a t has yet to h a p p e n o n all of o u r c a m p u s e s is the transformation of k n o w l e d g e a n d , therefore, of the c u r r i c u l u m d e m a n d e d by this explosion of n e w information, a n d by challenges to conventional ways of thinking a n d k n o w i n g . W o m e n ' s studies, the n e w scholar­ ship o n w o m e n , or transformation of the c u r r i c u l u m p r o j e c t s — t h e n a m e s vary according to c a m p u s a n d c u l t u r e — s h o u l d be goals of the faculty a n d academic administration on every c a m p u s . 18

126

W H O

STOLE

FEMINISM?

T h e transformation of the p h i l o s o p h y major at M o u n t Holyoke College is an e x a m p l e of c h a n g e as it m a y affect an individual scholarly depart­ m e n t . In the late eighties M o u n t Holyoke College was given funds by the D o n n e r F o u n d a t i o n to c o n d u c t transformation seminars. Next it acquired a p r o v o s t of the right consciousness, Peter Berek, w h o h a d been at Wil­ liams College. In the s p r i n g of 1 9 9 2 , this little item appeared in the college n e w s p a p e r , u n d e r the headline "Philosophy Transforms Major": In a n u n u s u a l m o v e , the Philosophy D e p a r t m e n t has b r o k e n away from traditional r e q u i r e m e n t s for p h i l o s o p h y majors a n d minors. . . . [As a result] s t u d e n t s will b e able to p u r s u e in d e p t h an area of special interest, including c o n t e m p o r a r y topics of philosophical t h o u g h t — s u c h as feminist philosophy, the philosophy of racism, a n d the p h i l o s o p h y of film. T h e article n o t e d the s u p p o r t the administration h a d given to the transformation of the p h i l o s o p h y major. Here is h o w the philosophy major w a s described before the transformation: "The major in philosophy is designed to p r o v i d e the s t u d e n t with a b r o a d u n d e r s t a n d i n g of the historical b a c k g r o u n d of c o n t e m p o r a r y philosophical thought. . . . It shall consist of at least eight courses, including o n e each in the history of ancient p h i l o s o p h y , the history of m o d e r n philosophy, a n d logic." Here is the n e w description: "A major in p h i l o s o p h y should provide the stu­ d e n t w i t h a b r o a d u n d e r s t a n d i n g of the b a c k g r o u n d of contemporary p h i l o s o p h y . . . . Because p h i l o s o p h y admits of a diversity of sometimes c o m p e t i n g c o n c e p t i o n s of w h a t p h i l o s o p h y is, the D e p a r t m e n t encour­ ages each major to articulate h e r o w n major p r o g r a m . " T h e catalog d o e s say that " m o s t s t u d e n t s " will be "encouraged to in­ clude . . . courses that p r o v i d e an historical b a c k g r o u n d for her area of special interest." But the old r e q u i r e m e n t s are gone, a n d philosophy as a traditional major at M o u n t Holyoke n o longer exists. Having b r o k e n away from the historic " p h a s e o n e " d e m a n d s that required the student to be­ c o m e t h o r o u g h l y conversant w i t h s u c h "geniuses" as Plato, Descartes, a n d Kant, the rules n o w allow a p h i l o s o p h y s t u d e n t to get her degree by taking s u c h courses as "Developments in Feminist Philosophy: Rethink­ ing the W o r l d " (which explains h o w feminists reconstruct their "own . . . version of p h i l o s o p h y " ) , "Philosophy a n d Film" (including a special study of films that feature an "unlikely couple"), "Film C o m e d y " (which in­ cludes "feminist a p p r o a c h e s to screwball comedy"), a n d "Feminist Sci­ ence Fiction as Feminist T h e o r y . " Some colleges have instituted policies to screen out p h a s e one "un19

A

BUREAUCRACY

OF

ONE'S

OWN

127

reachables" early in the faculty hiring process. Cornell College in Iowa was o n e of the first to m a k e s u c h policies official. All applicants for teaching positions at Cornell College m u s t s h o w that they are conversant with a n d sympathetic to the n e w feminist scholarship. According to a 1988 issue of the Chronicle of Higher Education, Dennis D a m o n Moore, d e a n of the College, says that prospective faculty m e m b e r s are asked at interviews w h a t impact feminist schol­ arship has h a d o n their w o r k a n d teaching. In addition, h e says, w h e n faculty m e m b e r s are reviewed, they are specifically asked to examine the relationship of the feminist perspective to their w o r k . 20

Six years later these sorts of d e v e l o p m e n t s are n o longer "news," a n d the Chronicle does n o t report o n t h e m . T h e transformationists have c o m e a long way in a very short time. H o w m u c h farther they will go d e p e n d s on the university faculties a n d the i n d e p e n d e n t learned societies, w h i c h have so far s h o w n little inclination to m a k e a stand in defense of the traditional s t a n d a r d s of liberal learning. Moreover, the transformationists are increasingly seeing to it that the faculties themselves are changing to include m o r e a n d m o r e p e o p l e of the "right consciousness." As the n u m ­ ber of doctrinally correct p e r s o n n e l grows, they, too, will see to it that only candidates of like qualifications are hired in the future. Ironically, the ongoing self-selection of faculty of the right feminist persuasion is being carried out in the n a m e of "diversity" a n d "inclusiveness."

There are h u n d r e d s of well-funded transformationist projects t h r o u g h ­ out the country. Peggy Mcintosh's Center for Research o n W o m e n at Wellesley College has a multimillion-dollar budget. T h e project at the University of Maryland has half a million to w o r k with. T h e d o y e n n e of transformationists, Caryn McTighe Musil, a n d her associates at the Asso­ ciation of American Colleges will have $4.5 million. Almost all transfor­ mationist projects are financially helped by being h o u s e d in the universities, w h e r e rent, postage, a n d other overhead is minimal. M a n y use the secretarial staffs a n d services of their host colleges. M u c h of their funding comes from foundation grants, b u t the b u l k of it comes from p u b l i c funds, via state s u p p o r t for universities. In addition to the m a n y individual projects s u p p o r t e d within the universities, there are the umbrella organizations s u c h as the AAC, w h i c h are n o w c o m m i t ­ ted to the educational p h i l o s o p h y a n d agenda of the transformationists. And there, again, the university bureaucracies are paying.

128

W H O

STOLE

FEMINISM?

It, is a dismaying fact that only o n e o r g a n i z a t i o n — t h e National Asso­ ciation of S c h o l a r s — h a s b e e n openly expressing concern at w h a t the transformationists are d o i n g in a n d to the American academy. The NAS has an office in Princeton, N e w Jersey, with a staff of six (two part-timers), a b u d g e t of $ 9 0 0 , 0 0 0 , a n d a national m e m b e r s h i p of fewer than three t h o u s a n d . In contrast to the transformationists, the NAS operates entirely o n its o w n ; n o university s u p p o r t s it or offers it facilities. Needless to say, the "politically correct" forces led by the gender femi­ nists are continually blasting the NAS as a backlashing, sexist, racist, right-wing organization p o p u l a t e d by "phase o n e " unreachables. In fact, like m o s t professional educational or academic associations, the NAS has liberal as well as conservative m e m b e r s , including James David Barber, a D u k e University political science professor, antiwar leader, a n d former p r e s i d e n t of A m n e s t y International; Richard Lamm, former Democratic governor of Colorado; S e y m o u r Martin Lipset, current president of the American Sociological Association; a n d Eugene a n d Elizabeth FoxGenovese, a Marxist historian a n d a socialist feminist, respectively. My h u s b a n d , Fred S o m m e r s , a n d I — b o t h registered D e m o c r a t s — a r e m e m ­ bers of the Boston chapter, w h i c h has n o distinctive political coloration. T h e c o m m o n d e n o m i n a t o r is alarm at the loss of academic freedoms a n d a s t r o n g conviction that traditional academic standards m u s t be protected. T h e NAS, a tiny m i n o r i t y in the American academy, has a principled respect for o p e n discussion. This requires it to give hearings to the o p ­ position w h e r e v e r it can. Steven Balch, its national director, a n d his staff m a k e it a practice to invite major spokespersons with opposing points of view to NAS meetings a n d conventions. These gatherings are often the scenes of real d e b a t e o n the very controversial issues that divide the NAS from its adversaries. O n e reason the NAS has r e m a i n e d so small is that anyone w h o joins the organization faces o p p r o b r i u m a n d labeling as a "reactionary." Untenu r e d m e m b e r s place themselves in special jeopardy. Nevertheless, as m o r e a n d m o r e faculty are b e c o m i n g fed u p with the doctrinaire forces that are steadily r e d u c i n g the degrees of freedom of b o t h teachers a n d students on America's c a m p u s e s , the m e m b e r s h i p keeps rising. Professor J i m H a w k i n s teaches p h i l o s o p h y at Santa Monica City Col­ lege. W h a t h a p p e n e d at his college i n d u c e d h i m to join with several of his colleagues to form a n NAS chapter on his c a m p u s . During the 1 9 8 9 9 0 academic year, a " C u r r i c u l u m Transformation Task Force" was formed at Santa Monica by the administration w i t h o u t the usual faculty senate participation. T h e C u r r i c u l u m Transformation Task Force issued a report w h o s e central thesis s e e m e d to b e that the college's traditional curriculum

A

BUREAUCRACY

OF

ONE'S

129

OWN

h a d a "Eurocentric, w h i t e male orientation." It "prescribed a wholesale rethinking of 'all the categories o n w h i c h w e have come, consciously or not, to d e p e n d , ' including o u r very definitions of courses, p a r a d i g m s , disciplines, a n d d e p a r t m e n t s . " Professor H a w k i n s a n d his colleagues also b e c a m e aware that the administration was m a k i n g substantial changes in the hiring processes, again w i t h o u t benefit of faculty i n p u t . For example, "a larger administrative contingent began to serve on previ­ ously faculty-dominated hiring committees, along with . . . p e o p l e specif­ ically trained to p r o m o t e the cause of 'diversity.' " T h e hiring of n e w faculty at Santa Monica w a s s o o n being carefully m o n i t o r e d by the trans­ formationists to ensure ideological rectitude. It is n o w a matter of r o u t i n e at Santa Monica City College that applicants are asked multiple questions on transformationism. H a w k i n s cites o n e enthusiastic m o n i t o r as saying, "If you have to hire a white male, at least b e sure his h e a d is in the right place." Professor H a w k i n s concludes his r e p o r t o n transformationist activ­ ities at Santa Monica City College w i t h the advice to "challenge y o u r local transformationists to defend their proposals a n d premises. For m a n y of t h e m this will be, sadly, an u n a c c u s t o m e d e x p e r i e n c e . " 21

22

At m a n y colleges a n d universities, administrators ask s t u d e n t s to eval­ uate their professors o n their sensitivity to gender issues. American Uni­ versity, for example, n o w asks the s t u d e n t w h e t h e r "the course e x a m i n e d the contributions of b o t h w o m e n a n d m e n . " O n e political science profes­ sor explained to m e that at American y o u r salary is directly linked to h o w well you d o o n these forms. H e once m a d e the mistake of saying "con­ gressmen" instead of "congresspersons" a n d was rudely r e b u k e d by two female s t u d e n t s . H e was convinced they w o u l d d o c k h i m several p o i n t s for that lapse. T h e University of Minnesota has established a core of graduate s t u d e n t s called "Classroom Climate Advisors" to h e l p s t u d e n t s offended by the remarks of professors or fellow s t u d e n t s "develop a strat­ egy for dealing w i t h the p r o b l e m . " 23

But m o r e i m p o r t a n t changes have occurred at the level of staffing. Candidates for faculty positions are likely to b e subject to careful screen­ ing to keep out p e r s o n s of the w r o n g consciousness. To m a k e this p o s ­ sible, the deciding committees m u s t themselves b e of the right consciousness. At the University of Arizona, faculty m e m b e r s w h o are n o t "keeping u p w i t h c u r r e n t t r e n d s " in p o s t m o d e r n a n d feminist t h o u g h t may b e disqualified from sitting o n tenure a n d p r o m o t i o n committees. This n e w policy p r o p o s e d by the (then) d e a n of the faculty of h u m a n i t i e s , Annette Kolodny, w o u l d significantly curtail the traditional prerogatives of senior faculty to pass o n a p p o i n t m e n t s a n d p r o m o t i o n s . T h e i m p u l s e to doctrinal control by removing dissident o p i n i o n from positions of 24

130

W H O

STOLE

FEMINISM?

p o w e r s o m e t i m e s takes a less subtle form. Incensed that an NAS chapter was being formed at D u k e University, Professor Stanley Fish asked the d e a n to institute a policy that w o u l d exclude NAS m e m b e r s from serving o n c o m m i t t e e s dealing w i t h t e n u r e a n d p r o m o t i o n decisions. In that case the d e a n did n o t comply. In a d d i t i o n to tightening the bureaucratic screws, the forces of doc­ trinal rectitude w o r k persistently a n d effectively to modify perspectives a n d g r o u p behavior. O n e example: In 1990, Virginia Polytechnic issued to the faculty copies of Removing Bias, a sixty-page guide presenting "tac­ tics for attitudinal c h a n g e . " T h e guide advises professors on h o w they can avoid offensive h u m o r : professors are encouraged to consult Free to Be You and Me b y Mario T h o m a s for help on h o w to be funny while "elimi­ nating g e n d e r s t e r e o t y p i n g . " T h e tacit cooperation of g o v e r n m e n t p e r s o n n e l is indispensable to the transformationists. I recently p h o n e d the State Board of Education in W a s h i n g t o n to i n q u i r e a b o u t a Transformation Conference being orga­ nized b y Betty Schmitz for twelve c o m m u n i t y colleges. All four speakers — w h o i n c l u d e d J o h n n e l l a Butler a n d Betty S c h m i t z — r e p r e s e n t e d essen­ tially the s a m e p o i n t of view. I asked Alberta May, an assistant director for s t u d e n t services o n the W a s h i n g t o n State Board for C o m m u n i t y a n d Technical Colleges w h o helps Ms. Schmitz to organize events, w h y they w e r e n o t inviting speakers w h o h a d different ideas a b o u t curriculum reform. After all, I said, the educational p h i l o s o p h y advocated by Ms. Schmitz a n d h e r associates is quite controversial. " W h a t d o you mean?" asked a genuinely baffled Ms. May. "In w h a t way could it be called controversial?" 25

Ms. May is a state employee. My question evidently rattled her, a n d she sent m e a follow-up letter that gives s o m e indication of the blind loyalty that transformationists c o m m a n d within s o m e government b u ­ reaucracies: "Visionary leaders at a large percentage of institutions of higher e d u c a t i o n perceive the infusion of cultural pluralism as adding strength to the general educational curricula. . . . The State Board for C o m m u n i t y a n d Technical Colleges . . . values the leadership a n d exper­ tise of b o t h Dr. Betty Schmitz a n d Dr. Johnnella Butler in this area." N e w s of m y conversation with Ms. May m u s t have reached Ms. Schmitz, for s h e w r o t e to m e accusing m e of "having attempted to per­ s u a d e o n e of m y clients to terminate m y e m p l o y m e n t " a n d warning m e that h e r "attorneys consider [my] c o n d u c t unlawful interference with a business relationship." She concluded: "If I learn that you have again a t t e m p t e d to interfere in a n y of m y professional relationships, I shall take

A

BUREAUCRACY

OF

ONE'S

OWN

131

all available steps to assure that s u c h c o n d u c t does n o t occur again a n d to redress a n y resulting d a m a g e . " Ms. Schmitz's readiness to use the masculinist courts to deal w i t h "interference" does n o t surprise m e . N o r is it surprising that h e r experi­ ence has given h e r the assurance that the g o v e r n m e n t is o n h e r side a n d that its largesse is rightfully hers. Despite their overwhelming successes, the transformationists k e e p warning their s u p p o r t e r s a b o u t an i m p e n d i n g "right-wing backlash." Caryn McTighe Musil attacks the NAS in the 1992 anthology The Courage to Question: Women's Studies and Student Learning for p u r v e y i n g "misin­ formed a n d d a n g e r o u s p o l e m i c s . " N o examples are given, a l t h o u g h a footnote cites a 1 9 8 8 NAS conference. Ms. Musil's reaction is instructive: criticism of a n y k i n d — e v e n in a small scholarly conference four years a g o — c a n n o t b e abided. It m u s t b e d e n o u n c e d , a n d those responsible m u s t b e i m p u g n e d . Beverly Guy-Sheftall, director of the W o m e n ' s Re­ search Center at S p e l m a n College, says it m o r e soberly in a recent finan­ cial report she w r o t e for the Ford F o u n d a t i o n : 26

W e m u s t n o t allow the c u r r e n t p r e o c c u p a t i o n w i t h "political cor­ rectness" to obscure the reality of a m o d e r n - d a y , well-organized, right-wing m o v e m e n t (inside a n d outside the academy) w h o s e old a n d p o p u l a r racist, sexist, a n d h o m o p h o b i c schemes threaten to reverse the progressive reforms of the 1960's. . . . This m a k e s it n e c ­ essary to advocate loudly a n d clearly for the demise of the a n d r o c e n ­ tric curriculum. . . . T h e s u p p o r t for W o m e n ' s Studies s h o u l d intensify d u r i n g this paradoxical p e r i o d of a s s a u l t . 27

It goes w i t h o u t saying that n o o n e deserves to b e called sexist or racist for defending the traditional curriculum. N o r s h o u l d criticizing the e d u ­ cational p h i l o s o p h y of g e n d e r feminists b e taken as a n y k i n d of sign that the critic belongs to a "right-wing m o v e m e n t . " Although m a n y conserva­ tives o p p o s e transformationism, m a n y of the b e s t - k n o w n critics w h o p u b ­ licly express alarm a b o u t its effects o n American education w o u l d b e counted politically as left of center. These include A r t h u r Schlesinger, Jr., J a m e s David Barber, Nat Hentoff, J a m e s Atlas, Robert H u g h e s , C. V a n n W o o d w a r d , Robert Alter, the late Irving H o w e , Eugene Genovese, Alan Dershowitz, Paul Berman, a n d J o h n Searle. They are j o i n e d b y a growing n u m b e r of progressive w o m e n including such distinguished figures as Cynthia Ozick, Cynthia Wolff, Mary Lefkowitz, Iris M u r d o c h , Doris Lessing, Sylvia Hewlett, Elizabeth Fox-Gen-

132

W H O

STOLE

FEMINISM?

ovese, J e a n Bethke Elshtain, Rita Simon, Susan Haack, a n d Ruth Barcan Marcus. T h e novelist Cynthia Ozick is a classical feminist w h o believes we are n o w witnessing the deterioration of feminism in the academy. She told m e , "The w h o l e p o i n t of feminism was to give w o m e n access to the great world. T h e n e w feminism o n the c a m p u s e s is regressive." Mary Lefkowitz, a Wellesley classicist, is a pioneer in the study of w o m e n in the ancient w o r l d , b u t she does not read the lives of w o m e n of antiquity in t e r m s of a n y rigid feminist system of interpretation. As a result, Professor Lefkowitz is p e r s o n a n o n grata a m o n g m a n y feminist historians. As a veteran equity feminist, Lefkowitz fought long a n d h a r d against the old b o y n e t w o r k that once discriminated against w o m e n scholars. She believes it is being replaced by a n e w network, an old girl n e t w o r k of feminist preferment. "Just like m a n y revolutions," she points out, "it b e c o m e s as b a d as w h a t it replaced." I s p o k e w i t h a n o t h e r distinguished classical scholar, Rebecca Hague, professor of classics at A m h e r s t College. She expressed grave d o u b t s a b o u t the value of a "feminist perspective on the ancient world" that focuses o n w o m e n ' s absence from the government, taking that as proof that w o m e n w e r e silenced a n d oppressed. "I a m n o t sure that w o m e n in the ancient w o r l d w a n t e d a role in the government. For t h e m the religious life h a d far m o r e value, a n d there w o m e n h a d a central role." Like Lefko­ witz, H a g u e c o n d e m n s the feminist intolerance to criticism. "I have the feeling that if y o u q u e s t i o n t h e m , y o u will b e targeted." Iris M u r d o c h fears that the progress being m a d e in the cause of libera­ tion, w h i c h s h e defines as freedom "to enjoy equal education, equal o p p o r t u n i t i e s , equal rights, a n d to b e treated as m e n a r e — a s ordinary p e o p l e o n their o w n merits a n d n o t as a special tribe," is being seriously threatened b y feminists w h o lay claim to female ethics, female criticism, a n d female k n o w l e d g e . W h e n o n e t h i n k s of "role m o d e l s " for female college students of a liberal, artistic b e n t , w o m e n like Iris M u r d o c h , J o a n Didion, Doris Lessing, Susan Sontag, a n d Cynthia Ozick c o m e to m i n d . These w o m e n have expressed d e e p reservations a b o u t gynocentric feminism. J o a n Didion articulated h e r a b h o r r e n c e of the idea of designating " w o m e n " as a special class in a 1 9 7 9 e s s a y . Susan Sontag wrote in a 1975 essay published in the New York Review of Books that she deplores feminist "anti-intellectualism" a n d felt it necessary to "dissociate myself from that wing of feminism that p r o m o t e s the rancid a n d d a n g e r o u s antithesis between m i n d . . . a n d emotion." 28

29

A

BUREAUCRACY

OF

ONE'S

OWN

133

In a 1 9 9 1 lecture at the 9 2 n d Street Y in N e w York City, Doris Lessing criticized the "rampaging k i n d of feminist" a n d called the denigration of male writers sheer " n o n s e n s e " that will alienate sensible w o m e n from feminism. "Hearing this k i n d of thing, m a n y w o m e n think, o h m y God, I don't w a n t to have a n y t h i n g to d o w i t h t h i s . " But s u c h o p i n i o n s are ignored by the w o m e n ' s studies a n d transformation m o v e m e n t s . "That is what has m a d e you marginal in the universities," Cynthia Ozick w a s w a r n e d by a c a m p u s feminist w h e n she expressed the " w r o n g " views in a New Yorker article s o m e years ago. Perhaps the m o s t c o n s p i c u o u s target of feminist o p p r o b r i u m is Camille Paglia, w h o has m a n a g e d to c o n f o u n d her attackers by striking b a c k publicly a n d to great effect. After h e r b o o k Sexual Personae n o t only became an u n e x p e c t e d best-seller b u t also was hailed by a n u m b e r of scholarly critics, she could reasonably have expected to b e a c k n o w l e d g e d as an o u t s t a n d i n g w o m a n scholar even b y those w h o take strong excep­ tion to her unfashionable views. But the Women's Review of Books b r a n d e d Sexual Personae a w o r k of "crackpot extremism," "an apologia for a n e w p o s t - C o l d W a r fascism," patriarchy's "counter-assault o n f e m i n i s m . " Feminist professors at C o n ­ necticut College, a t t e m p t i n g to get it r e m o v e d from a reading list, c o m ­ pared it to Mein Kampf W h e n Paglia a p p e a r e d at a Brown University forum, outraged faculty feminists signed a petition censuring her a n d d e m a n d i n g an investigation into p r o c e d u r e s for inviting speakers to the campus. Yale professor Harold Bloom has p o i n t e d o u t that " s o m e o n e as bril­ liant, as learned, as talented, a n d as ferociously b u r n i n g an intellect as Camille Paglia" belongs in the Ivy League or at someplace like the U n i ­ versity of California at Berkeley or the University of Chicago. But the "bureaucrats of r e s e n t m e n t w h o are a p p o i n t e d by others in the n e t w o r k because they are politically correct" will c o n t i n u e to d o their u t m o s t to m a k e sure that this does n o t h a p p e n . "They will blackball h e r every­ where." Despite Paglia's c o n t i n u e d defiance, the lesson is clear: a n y o n e w h o dares to criticize the " N e w Feminist scholarship" m u s t b e p r e p a r e d for rough treatment. W h e n the Shakespearean scholar Richard Levin took issue with s o m e feminist interpretations of Shakespeare's tragedies, h e was d e n o u n c e d in a r u d e letter boasting n o fewer t h a n twenty-four sig­ natories. Signing in g r o u p s is a s t a n d a r d feature of feminist critical re­ sponse. In the letter, p u b l i s h e d in PMLA, they tell u s they are "puzzled a n d disturbed that Richard Levin has m a d e a successful academic career" 30

31

32

134

W H O

STOLE

FEMINISM?

in view of his w a y of interpreting literary texts. They censure the j o u r n a l for having p u b l i s h e d Levin's article. If they h a d their way, Levin w o u l d effectively b e d e n i e d the o p p o r t u n i t y to publish his v i e w s . Neither Levin n o r Paglia is fazed by s u c h feminist onslaughts, b u t it w o u l d b e h a r d to u n d e r e s t i m a t e the inhibiting effects on others. Intimi­ dation has enforced a stultifying conformity. To criticize the N e w Femi­ nist scholarship w i t h o u t having t e n u r e is reckless in the extreme: it is n o w virtually impossible to find public fault with academic feminism w i t h o u t paying for it in drastically diminished prospects for j o b s or ad­ v a n c e m e n t in the American academy. T h e pressure to refrain from criti­ cism is m a t c h e d by t h e p r e s s u r e to toe the line by zealously p r o m o t i n g feminist doctrine. T h e N e w F e m i n i s m has b e e n rapidly colonizing a n d "transforming" the American university. T h e influx was n o t invited, n o r was it greeted with m u c h e n t h u s i a s m . Yet it has n o t m e t w i t h significant resistance. W h y not? Part of the a n s w e r is that s o m e academic gender feminists regard the a c a d e m y as a patriarchal institution w h o s e n o r m a l p r o c e d u r e s serve to k e e p E u r o p e a n w h i t e males in power. Being morally convinced that they are n o t b o u n d to a d h e r e to rules of "fair play" devised by the oppressor, these g e n d e r feminist ideologues have n o scruples a b o u t bypassing nor­ m a l c h a n n e l s in gaining their e n d s . A m o r e i m p o r t a n t p a r t of the answer is that a confused a n d wellm e a n i n g a c a d e m i c c o m m u n i t y has failed to distinguish clearly between equity a n d g e n d e r feminism. A befuddled liberalism has proved to be fertile soil for the g r o w t h of an intolerant gender feminism. The cannier feminists w e r e q u i c k to seize their opportunities. "You m i g h t w o n d e r , " says Paula G o l d s m i d , a former d e a n at Oberlin College, " h o w we managed to generate a w o m e n ' s studies p r o g r a m that has a catalog s u p p l e m e n t listing m o r e t h a n t w e n t y courses, that offers an individual major in w o m ­ en's studies, that has b e e n able to involve several committees in really w o r k i n g to transform the a c a d e m y in various ways." She describes one successful tactic: "There is a great reluctance to say or d o anything p u b ­ licly that goes against the liberal a n d 'progressive' Oberlin stance. Oberlin's liberal values can b e t u r n e d to our advantage" (her e m p h a s i s ) . Paula Rothenberg, h e a d of the N e w Jersey Project, gives m u c h the same explanation for h o w she a n d h e r sister feminists got their o w n college, William Paterson, to institute a w o m e n ' s studies requirement: " O u r sur­ prising success w a s d u e to . . . the presence o n the curriculum committee of s o m e allies a n d old-style liberals w h o found it difficult to disagree with the idea of s u c h a r e q u i r e m e n t , at least in p u b l i c . " Those w h o have their reservations a b o u t the costs of the rapid feminist 33

34

35

A

BUREAUCRACY

OF

ONE'S

OWN

135

colonization of the a c a d e m y remain in disarray. Many of the feminists w h o entered the a c a d e m y in the seventies a n d eighties h a d been activists in the antiwar sixties a n d seventies. Established academics, w h o m i g h t have been expected to resist s o m e of the ideological baggage these femi­ nists h a d b r o u g h t w i t h t h e m , p r o v e d to b e n o m a t c h for these dedicated veterans. In the first place, m a n y w e r e inexperienced in dealing w i t h people w h o simply ignored the u n s p o k e n u n d e r s t a n d i n g that n o g r o u p o n an American c a m p u s s h o u l d p r o m o t e a political agenda in its classrooms. And male faculty quickly b e c a m e aware that resistance to feminist p r o ­ posals w o u l d automatically be condemned as sexist a n d reactionary. T h e charge that the university itself w a s a male club k e p t t h e m p e r m a n e n t l y off balance. Moreover, p a r t of the legacy of the sixties was that a significant p a r t of the liberal a c a d e m y h a d long since shifted away from the classical individ­ ualist liberalism of J o h n Locke a n d J o h n Stuart Mill to "anti-establishment liberalism." They were n o t averse to the g e n d e r feminists' message that the university itself was p a r t of a morally discredited establishment. Recently, I was discussing the subject of the g e n d e r feminist "coloni­ zation" of the a c a d e m y w i t h a p r o m i n e n t scholar a n d equity feminist. I told her of m y view that well-meaning administrators a n d p r o f e s s o r s — mostly m a l e s — w e r e failing to distinguish b e t w e e n equity feminism a n d its u n s c r u p u l o u s twin, g e n d e r feminism, a n d w h a t h a r m their confusion was causing. My friend's theory was less flattering than m i n e . In her view, the male scholars w h o have given so m u c h latitude to poorly qualified feminist ideologues k n e w very well w h a t they w e r e doing. Most academic m e n , she says, are themselves average scholars a n d n o t overly comfortable with competition from capable w o m e n . T h e female scholars w h o m they have allowed to outflank t h e m strategically are at least intellectually less threatening t h a n "vertical" thinkers like Helen Vendler, Ruth Barcan Mar­ cus, or Elizabeth Fox-Genovese. If m y friend is right, the inordinate influence of g e n d e r feminism in the a c a d e m y is d u e at least in p a r t to oldfashioned sexism. Her theory is mischievous a n d attractive, a n d it has elements of truth. For w h e n a m a n of indifferent talents is conscious of being inferior to a w o m a n , the p r o b l e m of his o w n inferiority tends to b e c o m p o u n d e d by the fact that h e is being bested b y a w o m a n . O n the w h o l e , however, m o s t w o m e n scholars I have s p o k e n to a b o u t this d o n o t s u p p o r t m y friend's theory. Most c o m p e t e n t w o m e n a c a d e m ­ ics find that they are treated n o worse a n d n o better t h a n their male counterparts. T h e far less interesting explanation they offer for the failure of m e n — e s p e c i a l l y male d e a n s — t o stand u p to feminist ideologues a n d their projects is that they w i s h e d to avoid unpleasantness.

136

W H O

STOLE

FEMINISM?

I o n c e asked a p r o m i n e n t p h i l o s o p h e r of s c i e n c e — a politically progressive, fair-minded m a n — w h a t h e t h o u g h t of a lecture by Sandra H a r d i n g critiquing "male science." H e told m e he found it to be incom­ prehensible. "Did you raise a n y objection in the question-and-answer period?" I inquired. " N o , " h e said. "I a m j u s t h o p i n g it will all go away." T h e p r o b l e m is that "it" is n o t j u s t going to go away. " I t " — t h e gender feminist e s t a b l i s h m e n t — i s well e n t r e n c h e d , a n d its n u m b e r s are increas­ ing. It is confident, a n d it has little respect for scholars like m y friend. If anything, it is this Oxford-trained philosopher, a "phase one vertical thinker," w h o is in d a n g e r of b e c o m i n g irrelevant in the transformed university of the future. T h e p r e s e n c e of a frankly ideological a n d politically powerful core of academics in America's universities has consequences far b e y o n d the academy. Activist organizations like the National Organization of W o m e n , the Ms. F o u n d a t i o n , a n d the American Association of University W o m e n strive constantly to p e r s u a d e the wider public that w o m e n are urgently in n e e d of the protections they will help to provide. These organizations rely o n a p o o l of academic feminists to faithfully p r o d u c e b o o k s , data, a n d studies that d e m o n s t r a t e alarming a m o u n t s of sexism, discrimination, a n d g e n d e r bias. Most feminist activists are sincerely c o m m i t t e d to their mission, b u t there are material r e w a r d s that s h o u l d n o t go unnoticed. In o u r tight e c o n o m y , m a n y p r o d u c t i v e p e o p l e in depressed industries have lost or are in d a n g e r of losing their j o b s . There is n o comparable threat to the thriving careers of the professional feminists—the w o r k s h o p p e r s , facili­ tators, a n d transformationists. Large n u m b e r s of professionals with j o b titles like "sex equity expert," "gender bias officer," a n d "harassment facil­ itator" are remuneratively engaged in finding, monitoring, a n d eradicating endless manifestations of g e n d e r bias. T h a t the feminist bureaucracies already c o m m a n d significant patronage a n d p o w e r is d u e in great p a r t to their ability to influence local legislatures a n d school b o a r d s . M o r e recently, they have s h o w n a capacity to influence policy a n d law at the federal level. Here again, m u c h of their effectiveness is d u e to their talents for p e r s u a d i n g legislatures of the truth of s o m e alarming "facts" a b o u t the plight of w o m e n , based on "studies that s h o w . . . " T h e n e a r - t e r m p r o s p e c t that they will have at their disposal an ever-larger n u m b e r of ill-defined b u t well-paying j o b s is bright indeed.

Chapter 7

The Self-Esteem Study

In 1 9 9 1 , n e w s p a p e r s a r o u n d the c o u n t r y carried alarming reports a b o u t the p l u m m e t i n g self-esteem of American teenage girls. "Little girls lose their self-esteem o n way to adolescence, s t u d y finds," said the New York Times. "Girls' confidence erodes over years, s t u d y says" (Chicago Tribune). "Study p o i n t s to stark g e n d e r differences" (Boston Globe). T h e s t u d y h a d b e e n c o m m i s s i o n e d by the American Association of University W o m e n (AAUW), a w o m e n ' s organization founded in 1 8 8 1 , dedicated to p r o m o t i n g excellence in w o m e n ' s education. Like the League of W o m e n Voters, it is o n e of the m o r e respected w o m e n ' s organizations, with a c u r r e n t m e m b e r s h i p of a b o u t 1 4 0 , 0 0 0 . Any s t u d y bearing its i m p r i m a t u r is assured of w i d e a n d serious attention. As p a r t of its "Initiative for Educational Equity," the AAUW c o m m i s ­ sioned the W a s h i n g t o n , D.C., polling firm of Greenberg-Lake Associates to measure the self-esteem of girls a n d boys b e t w e e n the ages of n i n e a n d fifteen. Three t h o u s a n d children were asked a b o u t their self-confidence, career goals, a n d scholarly interests. According to the AAUW, the poll 1

2

3

138

W H O

STOLE

FEMINISM?

s h o w e d that b e t w e e n the ages of eleven a n d sixteen, girls experience a d r a m a t i c d r o p in self-esteem, w h i c h in t u r n significantly affects their ability to learn a n d to achieve. T h e AAUW took a very serious view of its findings, p u b l i s h i n g t h e m u n d e r the title "Shortchanging Girls, Short­ changing America." N o t only d i d the r e p o r t m a k e headlines a r o u n d the country, it led to h u n d r e d s of conferences a n d c o m m u n i t y action projects. Politicians, ed­ ucators, a n d business leaders have b e e n recruited by the AAUW to help America's " s h o r t c h a n g e d " girls. Fifty congresspersons r e s p o n d e d to the alarm b y s p o n s o r i n g a $ 3 6 0 million bill, the Gender Equity in Education Act, to deal w i t h the p r o b l e m s raised by the AAUW study. W h e n Pat Schroeder i n t r o d u c e d the G e n d e r Equity in Education Act before Con­ gress in April 1 9 9 3 , s h e cited the AAUW report as if it were gospel:

For too long, the n e e d s of girls have been ignored or overlooked in crafting e d u c a t i o n policy. . . . Today, w e k n o w that little girls as y o u n g as 11 years old suffer from l o w levels of self-esteem. W h e r e 9-year-old girls w e r e once confident that they could c o n q u e r the w o r l d , girls at age 11 s u d d e n l y begin d o u b t i n g their w o r t h . They n o longer like themselves a n d they begin to question their o w n abilities. . . . T h e G e n d e r Equity in Education Act will help m a k e schools an e n v i r o n m e n t w h e r e girls are n u r t u r e d a n d respected, w h e r e they can learn that their lives are valuable at the same time they learn their ABC's. 4

A l t h o u g h the self-esteem r e p o r t is having an e n o r m o u s impact, a most casual glance at its c o n t e n t s suffices to raise grave d o u b t s a b o u t its philos­ o p h y , m e t h o d o l o g y , a n d conclusions. O n e glaring example is this major piece of evidence for the difference in boys' a n d girls' aspirations for success: "Self-esteem is critically related to y o u n g people's dreams a n d successes. T h e higher self-esteem of y o u n g m e n translates into bigger career d r e a m s . . . . T h e n u m b e r of boys w h o aspire to glamorous occu­ pations (rock star, s p o r t s star) is greater than that of y o u n g w o m e n at every stage of adolescence, creating a k i n d of 'glamour gap.' " I d i d a d o u b l e take o n reading this. A glamour gapl Most kids d o n o t have the talent a n d drive to b e rock stars. T h e sensible ones k n o w it. W h a t these r e s p o n s e s suggest, a n d w h a t m a n y experts on adolescent d e v e l o p m e n t will tell you, is that girls m a t u r e earlier t h a n boys, w h o at this age, apparently, suffer from a "reality g a p . " We'll s o o n get to o t h e r d u b i o u s aspects of the AAUW's report. But 5

6

THE

SELF-ESTEEM

139

STUDY

first, let's see h o w the A A U W p r o m o t e d it. For it was a m o d e l of h o w gender feminist activists t e n d to use "research" to political advantage. W h e n it c o m p l e t e d the s t u d y in 1 9 9 1 , the A A U W held a blitz of press conferences. It distributed t h o u s a n d s of "Call to Action" b r o c h u r e s to its m e m b e r s h i p , to journalists, a n d to politicians. It also p r o d u c e d a highly professional d o c u m e n t a r y dramatizing the results of the study. T h e d o c ­ u m e n t a r y was s h o w n a r o u n d the c o u n t r y at c o m m u n i t y conferences or­ ganized by local A A U W chapters. In the d o c u m e n t a r y , A n n e Bryant, executive director of the AAUW, explains w h y w e c a n n o t afford to ignore the poll findings: "It is tragic to t h i n k a b o u t all the potential talent w e lose. . . . It's frightening n o t only for o u r girls, b u t for o u r country. W h e n we s h o r t c h a n g e girls, w e s h o r t c h a n g e A m e r i c a . " Dr. David Sadker, a n education theorist from American University w h o was interviewed in the d o c u m e n t a r y , offered a grim estimation of w h a t America w a s losing b y allowing this situation to persist: "If the cure for cancer is in the m i n d of a girl, there is a chance w e will never get it." T h e A A U W s findings w e r e n o surprise to psychologist Carol Gilligan of the Harvard University G r a d u a t e School of Education. Dr. Gilligan, w h o was featured in the A A U W self-esteem video, speaks of h o w h e r o w n research h a d h e l p e d her to see that girls experience a "loss of voice" that sometimes leads to serious psychological p r o b l e m s s u c h as "depression, eating disorders a n d various k i n d s of dislocation." At eight or n i n e years old, she'd found, girls are forthright a n d self-confident. But as they enter adolescence they begin to fade, to retreat. T h e y begin to notice that w o m e n are u n d e r v a l u e d a n d that the cultural message is "keep quiet." Gilligan a n d h e r associates have b e c o m e convinced that s o m e t h i n g d r e a d ­ ful h a p p e n s to girls at age thirteen or fourteen. As Gilligan reported to the New York Times, "By 15 or 16 that resistance has gone u n d e r g r o u n d . T h e y start saying, T d o n ' t k n o w , I d o n ' t k n o w , I d o n ' t k n o w . ' They start n o t k n o w i n g w h a t they h a d k n o w n . " In her foreword to the "Call to Action" b r o c h u r e , AAUW p r e s i d e n t Sharon Schuster m a k e s a direct appeal to the reader o n behalf of all the "shortchanged girls": " W h e n you read this report, w e ask you, m o s t of all, to t h i n k of s o m e special girl in y o u r life—a d a u g h t e r or g r a n d d a u g h ­ ter, a sister or s t u d e n t , a niece or a neighbor. Ask yourself, ' W h a t can I d o to m a k e sure that o u r schools aren't shortchanging her future?' " In J a n u a r y 1 9 9 1 the A A U W organized a n "Educational Equity R o u n d table" for leaders in g o v e r n m e n t , education, a n d business to begin to address the p r o b l e m of girls' precipitous loss of confidence. Participants included Governor Roy Romer of Colorado a n d Martha Frick, p r e s i d e n t of the National School Boards Association. Journalists were also invited. 7

8

9

140

W H O

STOLE

FEMINISM?

As Sharon Schuster explains, "There w a s a n i m p r e s s i v e — a n d overwhelm­ i n g — c o m m i t m e n t b y these leaders to address the needs of girls a n d young w o m e n . " T h e r e s p o n s e from t h e m e d i a w a s gratifying. T h e AAUW has its aura of r e p u t e a n d integrity, so it is p e r h a p s u n d e r s t a n d a b l e that the news reports a b o u t its self-esteem s t u d y were taken at face value. N o o n e suggested that t h e AAUW's alarming findings a b o u t the plight of the nation's girls m i g h t b e t h e p r o d u c t of "advocacy research," research u n ­ d e r t a k e n w i t h a n eye to "proving" conclusions that advocates are ideolog­ ically c o m m i t t e d to a n d that they find politically useful. Reporters w h o m i g h t n o r m a l l y seek o u t alternative p o i n t s of view d i d n o t d o so in this case. Despite t h e sensational a n d sweeping n a t u r e of the findings that girls' self-esteem p l u m m e t s , as far as I could ascertain, n o n e of the journalists w h o r e p o r t e d o n t h e s t u d y interviewed a n y social scientists to see w h e t h e r the poll that r e p o r t e d this w a s p r o p e r l y designed a n d its results properly interpreted. Except for Carol Gilligan a n d h e r followers, n o other experts in adolescent psychology w e r e cited b y the press. Indeed, in n o n e of these stories w a s a single critic cited, despite the existence of a large b o d y of findings a n d c o n t r a r y o p i n i o n s that t h e AAUW h a d ignored. Because the m e d i a m a d e n o effort to l o o k b e y o n d t h e n e w s releases given t h e m by the AAUW, it w a s left to skeptics to c o m e forward o n their o w n . As w e shall see, s o m e did. 1 0

In t h e m e a n t i m e , however, the AAUW's rhetoric h a d taken hold. W h e n the A A U W initiated its s t u d y in 1 9 9 0 , self-esteem was the h o t topic of the m o m e n t . Everyone w a n t e d it; s o m e states h a d task forces to help p e o p l e get it. C o n c e r n a b o u t children's self-image w a s so high the Chil­ dren's M u s e u m in Denver installed a "self-esteem corner." Self-esteem was t h e c u r e for w h a t ails t h e c o u n t r y a n d a ticket to the best-seller list. Books w i t h titles like Learning to Love Yourself, The Inner Child Work­ book, Co-Dependent's Guide to the Twelve Steps, a n d Children of Trauma: Recovering Your Discarded Self sold in the millions. A National Council o n Self-Esteem w a s e s t a b l i s h e d . T h e N e w York State Education D e p a r t m e n t p u b l i s h e d a self-esteem m a n u a l that identifies four " c o m p o n e n t s " of selfesteem. "I a m s o m e b o d y , " "I belong," "I a m competent," a n d "I have possibilities," it proclaims, s o u n d i n g very m u c h like Stuart Smalley o n "Saturday Night Live" ("I'm g o o d e n o u g h , I'm smart e n o u g h , a n d d o g gonit, p e o p l e like m e " ) . T h e charge that t h e self-esteem of the nation's girls w a s being u n d e r ­ m i n e d w a s m a d e to o r d e r for the times. But was it true? That the report was so widely a n d uncritically credited c a n n o t be taken as a sign of its 11

12

13

THE

SELF-ESTEEM

STUDY

141

s o u n d n e s s . T h e journalists a n d their readers, the concerned politicians a n d their constituents, did n o t k n o w that the AAUW is yet a n o t h e r paraacademic organization that has b e c o m e highly political a n d ideological in recent years. Its charter is b r o a d e n o u g h to include g e n d e r feminists, equity feminists, a n d nonfeminist w o m e n . But its p r e s e n t leadership has changed the association into an activist a r m of g e n d e r feminism. Its cur­ rent g r o u p of officers—executive director A n n e Bryant, president Sharon Schuster, a n d Alice McKee, president of the A A U W educational founda­ t i o n — a r e c o m m i t t e d g e n d e r feminists w h o h a d expectations of w h a t they w o u l d find w h e n they initiated the self-esteem study. So a cool a n d objective look at the reported findings a n d the evidence for t h e m is badly needed. Here is h o w the AAUW s u m m a r i z e s the results of the survey in its "Call to Action" b r o c h u r e : In a crucial m e a s u r e of self-esteem, 6 0 p e r c e n t of elementary school girls a n d 6 9 p e r c e n t of elementary school boys say they are " h a p p y the way I a m . " But, by high school, girls' self-esteem falls 3 1 p o i n t s to only 2 9 percent, while boys' self-esteem falls only 2 3 p o i n t s to 4 6 percent. 14

Girls are less likely t h a n boys to say they are "pretty g o o d at a lot of things." Less t h a n a third of girls express this confidence, c o m p a r e d to almost half the boys. A 10-point g e n d e r gap in confidence in their abilities increases to 19 p o i n t s in high s c h o o l . 15

T h e s t u d y found boys to be m o r e likely to stick u p for themselves in a disagreement w i t h a teacher (28 p e r c e n t of boys, 15 percent of girls); a n d boys are m o r e likely t h a n girls to "believe their career d r e a m s will c o m e true." T h e A A U W is h a p p y to a c c o m m o d a t e a n y o n e w h o w a n t s to see the "Call to Action" b r o c h u r e a n d the "Shortchanging Girls" video: they have an 8 0 0 n u m b e r for those w h o wish to o r d e r these a n d other gender bias materials they have developed. These readily available materials s u m m a ­ rize the "findings." Getting hold of the actual Goldberg-Lake self-esteem s t u d y — t h e h a r d data on w h i c h all the claims are b a s e d — t u r n e d o u t to be far m o r e difficult. You c a n n o t o r d e r it t h r o u g h the 8 0 0 n u m b e r . It is n o t available in libraries. T h e only way to get a look at it is to b u y it directly from the A A U W for $ 8 5 . I was willing to d o that, t h o u g h it is very u n u s u a l that a s t u d y cited as authoritative by m e m b e r s of the United States Congress w o u l d b e unavailable in any library. Even b u y i n g it t u r n e d out to b e a p r o b l e m , t h o u g h . 16

142

W H O

STOLE

FEMINISM?

" W h y d o y o u w a n t it?" asked a curious w o m a n in the AAUW office in W a s h i n g t o n . I said, truthfully e n o u g h , that I was doing research for a b o o k a n d w o u l d like to review the data. She told m e to leave m y n u m b e r a n d s o m e o n e w o u l d get b a c k to m e . N o o n e did. I tried again. This time, there w a s a tentative u n d e r s t a n d i n g that they w o u l d send m e the study. But first they w o u l d s e n d m e a letter outlining certain terms. A letter eventually came, signed b y A n n e Bryant. She wrote: "Please send a state­ m e n t outlining h o w y o u p l a n to use the survey i n s t r u m e n t a n d results, along w i t h y o u r p a y m e n t for t h e full research report. If your review a n d analysis of t h e data results in a possible publication or presentation, that use of data m u s t receive a d v a n c e written approval from AAUW." I sent t h e m o n e y a n d a b l a n d "statement" a b o u t m y plans. I also used the 8 0 0 n u m b e r to o r d e r all t h e high-priced p a m p h l e t s , newsletters, a n d s u m m a r i e s a n d , of course, t h e video. W h e n the full report finally arrived, after several w e e k s a n d three m o r e p h o n e calls, I saw immediately w h y A A U W w a s so cautious. For o n e thing, it contained n o t h i n g like a defi­ nition of self-esteem, or even a n informal discussion of w h a t they m e a n t by it. T h e c o n c e p t of self-esteem is generally considered to b e unstable a n d controversial, yet few psychologists d o u b t its central importance. T h e instability a n d fluidity of t h e c o n c e p t m a k e s it ill-suited for a pollster a p p r o a c h . Polling firms are g o o d at tallying opinions, b u t self-esteem is a c o m p l e x p e r s o n a l characteristic, a n d people's expressed opinions of themselves m a y have little to d o w i t h their sense of inner worth. Yet the AAUW/Greenberg-Lake p r o c e d u r e s relied almost exclusively o n selfreports. Self-esteem a n d a h o s t of related personal characteristics such as selflove, humility, p r i d e , a n d vanity have b e e n u n d e r study since Aristotle. T h e scientific s t u d y of self-esteem b y developmental psychologists a n d sociologists is in its infancy. At the m o m e n t , there is little agreement a b o u t h o w to define it a n d far less agreement o n h o w to measure it. Oxford University psychiatrist Philip Robson says, "It has even been q u e s t i o n e d w h e t h e r self-esteem exists as a n i n d e p e n d e n t e n t i t y . " W h a t is m o r e , different tests p r o d u c e different results. According to Dr. Robson, "The s a m e p e o p l e d o n o t get high scores o n all of them." Self-reports o n feelings of i n n e r w o r t h are n o t consistent over time, n o r are they easy to interpret. H i g h scores o n a self-esteem test, says Dr. Robson, m a y indicate "conformity, rigidity, or insensitivity." J a c k Block, a research psychologist at the University of California, Berkeley, h a s also criticized self-esteem questionnaires for failing to deter­ m i n e why p e o p l e like or dislike themselves. Dr. Block points o u t that 17

18

THE

SELF-ESTEEM

143

STUDY

s o m e o n e w i t h high m a r k s o n a self-esteem test m a y 1) b e deceiving the researchers; 2) b e a self-absorbed egoist; or 3) have a healthy sense of self. Professor Susan Harter, a n o t h e r expert o n adolescent self-esteem, w a r n s of the difficulties in defining a n d measuring self-esteem: 19

A m b i g u o u s definitions of the construct, inadequate m e a s u r i n g in­ s t r u m e n t s , a n d lack of theory have plagued self-esteem research. There is n o w a growing consensus . . . that self-esteem is poorly captured b y measures that c o m b i n e evaluations across diverse d o ­ m a i n s — s u c h as scholastic c o m p e t e n c e , social acceptance, behav­ ioral c o n d u c t , a n d a p p e a r a n c e — i n t o a single s u m m a r y s c o r e . 20

Setting aside for the m o m e n t the very serious p r o b l e m s of definition a n d m e a s u r e m e n t , w e m a y ask w h e t h e r researchers in t h e area of adoles­ cent psychology are in a n y k i n d of agreement that girls d o experience a dramatic d r o p in self-esteem. Bruce Bower, behavioral science editor at Science News, w a s surprised w h e n h e read the AAUW's a n n o u n c e m e n t in t h e New York Times. H e calls the AAUW findings controversial, n o t i n g that they "have refocused atten­ tion o n long-standing questions a b o u t the m e a n i n g of s u c h studies a n d their implications, if any, for educational reform a n d . . . psychological d e v e l o p m e n t . " Bower canvassed the o p i n i o n of other researchers, a n d he found that t h e AAUW's finding that girls' self-esteem p l u m m e t s d i d not square w i t h w h a t m o s t of the experts in adolescent psychology w e r e saying. H e s u m m a r i z e d the discrepancies b e t w e e n the A A U W findings a n d w h a t the experts say in the May 2 3 , 1 9 9 1 , issue of Science News. After reading Bower's article, I talked w i t h several of the experts h e cited. Barton J. Hirsch, a professor of psychology at N o r t h w e s t e r n University, has found c o m p a r a b l e levels of self-esteem in adolescent boys a n d girls. I asked Professor Hirsch w h a t h e t h o u g h t of the AAUW report. "Its findings are inconsistent w i t h the recent literature. For a while there w a s said to be a small d r o p in self-esteem of high a n d m i d d l e school g i r l s — n o w n e w results s h o w otherwise." H e also cautioned, a n d m o s t experts in selfesteem seem to agree, that n o o n e h a s b e e n able to establish a clear correlation b e t w e e n self-esteem a n d b e h a v i o r . Yet the AAUW a u t h o r s categorically assert: " M u c h of the difference b e t w e e n the educational as­ pirations a n d career goals of girls a n d boys can b e traced to a gender gap in self-esteem that w i d e n s d u r i n g their school y e a r s . " Some researchers s u c h as Susan Harter, Jack Block, J o s e p h Adelson, a n d the late Roberta S i m m o n s say that adolescent girls d o experience 21

22

23

144

W H O

STOLE

FEMINISM?

s o m e d r o p in self-esteem. But their conclusions are n u a n c e d a n d tenta­ tive: n o t h i n g like the dramatic, simplistic, a n d alarming contentions of the AAUW. I a s k e d Susan Harter w h a t she t h o u g h t of the AAUW study. She said, "It w a s p o o r l y designed a n d psychometrically u n s o u n d . " Roberta S i m m o n s in h e r seminal w o r k o n adolescent psychology, Mov­ ing into Adolescence, says that girls experience a temporary d r o p as they go t h r o u g h j u n i o r h i g h school, only to r e b o u n d once they establish a circle of friends. In high school there is a second d r o p . She says, "We d o n ' t k n o w if that last self-esteem d r o p . . . was temporary or perma­ nent." W e n d y W o o d at Texas A & M University did a statistical comparison of ninety-three i n d e p e n d e n t studies o n w o m e n ' s feelings of well-being. Bruce Bower has s u m m a r i z e d W o o d ' s research: "In examining these stud­ ies, w h i c h focused o n well-being a n d life satisfaction a m o n g adult m e n a n d w o m e n , W o o d a n d h e r colleagues found that w o m e n reported b o t h greater h a p p i n e s s and m o r e dissatisfaction a n d depression than m e n . " I s p o k e w i t h Dr. W o o d . She claims that w h a t m a y look like a selfesteem g e n d e r g a p m a y b e merely d u e to a gap in expressiveness. W o o d a n d h e r colleagues believe that girls a n d w o m e n are m o r e aware of their feelings a n d m o r e articulate in expressing them, a n d so they are m o r e c a n d i d a b o u t their negative e m o t i o n s in self-reports than males are. "If you d o n o t control for this difference, it is very easy to get a very distorted picture." N a o m i Gerstel, a sociologist at the University of Massachusetts, faults self-esteem s u r v e y s — i n c l u d i n g the AAUW s t u d y — f o r neglecting to in­ terview h i g h s c h o o l d r o p o u t s . M o r e males d r o p o u t t h a n females. T h e fact that these boys d o n o t get i n c l u d e d in these studies may be creating a false p i c t u r e of b o y s ' self-esteem. T h e Berkeley psychologist Diana Baumrind is skeptical a b o u t the reli­ ability of self-reporting altogether. She a n d her colleagues first measure children's overall achievements a n d competence. They then rely on trained observers to evaluate children's social a n d emotional well-being. Using objective m e a s u r e s as m u c h as possible, they have found n o signif­ icant lasting differences b e t w e e n boys a n d girls in areas of self-esteem. A n n e Petersen, a University of Minnesota adolescent psychologist, re­ cently s u m m a r i z e d the o p i n i o n shared by m o s t clinicians a n d researchers w o r k i n g in adolescent psychology: 24

2 5

26

27

It is n o w k n o w n that the majority of adolescents of b o t h genders successfully negotiate this developmental period w i t h o u t any major

THE

SELF-ESTEEM

STUDY

145

psychological or emotional disorder, develop a positive sense of personal identity, a n d m a n a g e to forge adaptive p e e r relationships at the s a m e time they maintain close relationships w i t h their fami­ lies. 28

Roberta S i m m o n s h a d said very m u c h the same thing: "Most kids c o m e through the years from 10 to 20 w i t h o u t major p r o b l e m s a n d with a n increasing sense of self-esteem." If Petersen a n d S i m m o n s are right, the AAUW's contentions are a n expensive false alarm. In any case, the A A U W is less t h a n candid w h e n it speaks of its efforts to review the growing b o d y of research o n h o w girls learn. It is d o i n g n o s u c h thing. William D a m o n , the Director for the Center for Study of H u m a n De­ v e l o p m e n t at Brown University, took s o m e time to look into the claim that teenage girls were suffering a loss of self-esteem. "So far I have b e e n unable to find a single article in a n y refereed j o u r n a l that actually tests this thesis." He concedes that h e did n o t s p e n d m o n t h s searching the literature. But, h e says, if there is s u c h a n article, it's n o t easy to find. As h e sees it, the debate over girls' self-esteem has never taken place a m o n g researchers. Rather, "the w h o l e thing is being carried o n in the c o u r t of the media." I asked J o s e p h Adelson, a University of Michigan psychologist a n d editor of the Handbook on Adolescent Psychology, w h a t h e t h o u g h t of the AAUW Report o n self-esteem. " W h e n I saw the report I t h o u g h t , 'This is awful. I could p r o v e it is awful, b u t it's n o t w o r t h m y time.' " Given the hazards facing any investigator doing research in the area of self-esteem, a n d given that few adolescent psychologists corroborate the AAUW findings, the b u r d e n of proof is o n the A A U W to s h o w that its study was well designed a n d its findings carefully interpreted. But this is precisely w h a t it has n o t s h o w n . That m a y explain w h y the actual data for the Greenberg-Lake survey o n w h i c h the AAUW based its sensational conclusions are so h a r d to c o m e by. In fact, s h o w i n g that the A A U W results are w r o n g is n o t as t i m e - c o n s u m i n g as Adelson imagined it to be. A careful look at the self-reports quickly reveals the artful ways that the questions were asked a n d the answers tabulated to get the alarming con­ clusions of a national crisis in the self-esteem of adolescent girls. 29

The AAUW/Greenberg-Lake's self-esteem survey asked three t h o u s a n d children to r e s p o n d to statements s u c h as "I'm h a p p y the way I a m , " "I like most things a b o u t myself," "I a m good at a lot of things," "My teacher is p r o u d of m e , " a n d "I'm an i m p o r t a n t p e r s o n . " In its "Call to Action"

146

W H O

STOLE

FEMINISM?

b r o c h u r e , the A A U W says the responses to s u c h questions offer a "crucial m e a s u r e " of self-esteem. Let u s grant that this m a y b e so a n d consider m o r e closely the r e p o r t e d findings o n the happiness query: T h e n a t i o n w i d e survey c o m m i s s i o n e d by AAUW found that 6 0 per­ cent of elementary school girls a n d 6 9 percent of elementary school boys say they're " h a p p y the way I a m " — a key indicator of selfesteem. By h i g h school, girls' self-esteem falls 3 1 percent to 29 percent, while b o y s ' self-esteem falls only 2 3 percent to 4 6 percent — a n increase from 7 to 17 p o i n t s in the gender gap on this measure of self-esteem. 30

O n e can see w h y a n y fair-minded p e r s o n w o u l d b e thoroughly alarmed b y s u c h a result. However, even if w e accept that self-reports are reliable indicators of self-esteem, the claims stated in the b r o c h u r e are seriously misleading. W e are only told a b o u t h o w m a n y boys a n d girls r e s p o n d e d "always t r u e " to " h a p p y the way I a m . " W e are n o t told that this was only o n e of five possible responses, including "sort of true," "sometimes true/ s o m e t i m e s false," "sort of false," or "always false" a n d that most responses w e r e in t h e m i d d l e ranges. F e w child psychologists w o u l d consider any b u t the last two responses—or p e r h a p s only the very last one—as a sign of dangerously l o w self-esteem. T h e data presented to the public by the A A U W in all its literature a n d in its d o c u m e n t a r y suggest that the majority of girls are a b n o r m a l l y lacking in self-esteem. But this is deceptive be­ cause, in a d d i t i o n to the 2 9 p e r c e n t of girls w h o checked "always true," 3 4 p e r c e n t c h e c k e d "sort of t r u e " a n d a n o t h e r 2 5 percent "sometimes t r u e / s o m e t i m e s false"—a total of 8 8 percent, c o m p a r e d to 9 2 percent of boys. T h e A A U W claimed a seventeen-point gender gap in adolescent self-esteem. T h e m e d i a , of course, followed the line laid d o w n by the AAUW, w h i c h carefully a n d exclusively based its " h a p p y the way I a m " report on the "always t r u e " r e s p o n d e n t s , ignoring all other respondents. Relying o n this, NEA Today, the n e w s p a p e r of the National Education Association, said, "By t h e time girls are in high school, only 29 percent say they are happy with themselves." An article in the Chicago Tribune was typical of the response in the p o p u l a r press: " W h i l e 6 0 p e r c e n t of elementary school girls a n d 6 9 per­ cent of boys p r o c l a i m themselves ' h a p p y the way I am,' by high school only 2 9 p e r c e n t of girls a n d 4 6 p e r c e n t of boys express s u c h feelings." These deceptive figures m a d e their way into Gloria Steinem's Revolution from Within. In fact, s h e mistakenly reversed the figures for nine-year-old 31

32

THE

SELF-ESTEEM

147

STUDY

boys a n d girls, m a k i n g the girls' d r o p in self-esteem a p p e a r even m o r e drastic: Even t h o u g h girls get g o o d grades, learn h o w to read sooner a n d have an edge over boys in verbal skills, the question w e really n e e d to ask is: "What are these girls learning [her emphasis]? According to a study c o m m i s s i o n e d by the American Association of University W o m e n a n d released in 1 9 9 1 , a large part of the lesson is to u n d e r ­ value oneself. As nine-year-olds, for instance, 6 7 [sic] p e r c e n t of girls a n d 6 0 p e r c e n t of boys said they were " h a p p y with the way I a m . " By the time s t u d e n t s were in high school, however, only 4 6 percent of boys said they felt that w a y — a l s o a tragedy that n e e d s every a t t e n t i o n — a n d the girls h a d p l u m m e t e d to 29 p e r c e n t . 33

The W o m e n ' s Research a n d Education Institute in W a s h i n g t o n , D.C., publishes an influential status r e p o r t o n American w o m e n called The American Woman. * " N o b o o k o n the status of w o m e n is m o r e i m p o r t a n t for g o v e r n m e n t officials, m e m b e r s of Congress, a n d policy m a k e r s t h a n The American Woman," says Governor A n n R i c h a r d s . "This b o o k s h o u l d be on the desk of every p e r s o n a n d policy-maker interested in the status of w o m e n today," says Senator Barbara Mikulski. Here is h o w The Amer­ ican Woman reports o n the A A U W findings: "Surveying youngsters ages 9 to 15 in 12 locations across the country, [AAUW] researchers found that by the time they are in high school, only 2 9 percent of girls say they are h a p p y w i t h themselves, c o m p a r e d to 4 6 p e r c e n t of b o y s . " Appar­ ently, neither Steinem, the journalists, n o r the staff at the W o m e n ' s Re­ search a n d Education Institute looked at the data being used by the A A U W . They m u s t have relied instead on the AAUW's b r o c h u r e . 3

35

36

37

Here is h o w the AAUW itself w o u l d s o o n be referring to its o w n findings: A nationwide survey commissioned by the American Association of University W o m e n (AAUW) in 1 9 9 0 found that o n average 6 9 per­ cent of elementary school boys a n d 6 0 p e r c e n t of elementary school girls reported that they were " h a p p y the way I am"; a m o n g high school s t u d e n t s the percentages were 4 6 p e r c e n t for boys a n d only 29 percent for g i r l s . 38

The b r o c h u r e publicized a n o t h e r misleading conclusion: "Girls are less likely than boys to feel [they are] 'good at a lot of things.' Less than a third of girls express this confidence, c o m p a r e d to almost half the boys.

148

W H O

STOLE

FEMINISM?

A 10-point g e n d e r g a p in confidence in their abilities increases to 19 p o i n t s in h i g h s c h o o l . " But again the reader is n o t informed that almost half of the h i g h school girls (44 percent) chose the second possible re­ s p o n s e , "sort of t r u e , " w h i c h w o u l d have given a total of 6 7 percent girls a n d 7 9 p e r c e n t b o y s w h o essentially feel they are "good at a lot of things." If the " s o m e t i m e s t r u e / s o m e t i m e s false" response is included, the results for girls a n d boys are 9 5 p e r c e n t a n d 9 8 percent, respectively, an alto­ gether negligible difference. T h e usual sequence of responses in such surveys, b y the way, is "always true," "usually true," "sometimes true," "rarely t r u e , " a n d "never true." C a n it b e that the researchers suspected s u c h answers m i g h t n o t yield useful r e s u l t s ? W h y , for that matter, s h o u l d s o m e o n e w h o answers "sometimes true/ s o m e t i m e s false" to "I'm g o o d at a lot of things" b e counted as lacking in self-confidence? In fact, aren't the "always t r u e " answers suspect? The 4 2 p e r c e n t of boys w h o say "always t r u e " to "good at a lot of things" may b e s h o w i n g a lack of m a t u r i t y or reflectiveness, or a w a n t of humility. Simi­ larly, a b o y w h o t h i n k s of himself as "always" " h a p p y the way I a m " may b e suffering from a "maturity g a p . " Conversely, it is n o t necessarily a m a r k of insecurity or l o w self-esteem to a d m i t to feeling blue or n o t prodigiously proficient s o m e of the time. T h e AAUW/Greenberg-Lake analysts m a y have been u n a w a r e that their "survey i n s t r u m e n t " w a s seriously inadequate, a n d that their pollsters m i g h t have b e e n m e a s u r i n g s o m e t h i n g different from self-esteem or selfconfidence (e.g., maturity). H a d the AAUW been less concerned to s h o w that girls are b e i n g " s h o r t c h a n g e d , " it w o u l d have s u p p l e m e n t e d its poll by consulting w i t h o t h e r experts to arrive at m o r e responsible conclu­ sions. T h e A A U W s t u d y d i d find areas w h e r e boys a n d girls s h o w nearly the s a m e levels of self-confidence, b u t they d o n o t emphasize these findings in the b r o c h u r e , s u m m a r y report, or d o c u m e n t a r y . O n the "teacher is p r o u d of m e " statement, girls scored higher than boys (41 percent said "always t r u e " or "sort of true," c o m p a r e d to 3 6 percent of boys). Virtually the s a m e p r o p o r t i o n of boys a n d girls said "always true" to the " p r o u d of m y w o r k in s c h o o l " s t a t e m e n t (17 p e r c e n t of girls, 16 percent of boys), a n d 3 2 p e r c e n t girls a n d 3 4 p e r c e n t boys said "sort of true." These results are available to a n y o n e w h o cares to send in the $ 8 5 a n d sign the "Statement of Intent" form. H a d the journalists w h o helped advertise the AAUW's message b e e n less c r e d u l o u s — h a d they taken the time to review h o w the questionnaire was designed a n d the results inter­ p r e t e d — t h e y w o u l d have seen that the s t u d y o n w h i c h it was based was a lot of s m o k e a n d mirrors. 39

40

41

THE

SELF-ESTEEM

STUDY

149

W h e n gender feminists like Sharon Schuster, A n n e Bryant, a n d Gloria Steinem discuss self-esteem, they a s s u m e as a matter of course that w o m e n are treated in ways that diminish their self-confidence, thereby keeping t h e m s u b o r d i n a t e to m e n . It remains only to p e r s u a d e the p u b l i c that this u n d e r m i n i n g of w o m e n is constantly taking place a n d that the nation's girls are suffering. T h e AAUW's "crucial measure of self-esteem" (self-reporting "always t r u e " for "I a m h a p p y the way I am") is offered as evidence to confirm that high school girls are being u n d e r m i n e d . But if we accept this as a "crucial m e a s u r e , " w e find it yields a curious result. For it t u r n s o u t that African-American girls scored much higher o n selfesteem in the A A U W s t u d y than even w h i t e boys. To the " h a p p y the way I a m " statement, 5 8 p e r c e n t of the AfricanAmerican high school girls say "always true"; 3 6 percent of white high school boys say "always true." For w h i t e high school girls, the figure is 22 percent. T h e w h i t e boys are fourteen p o i n t s ahead of the w h i t e g i r l s — a "gap" the AAUW finds s h o c k i n g a n d unacceptable. But o n their test, the African-American girls lead the w h i t e boys by twenty-two p o i n t s , a n d the white girls by thirty-six points! Clearly this finding does n o t square w i t h the other basic a s s u m p t i o n that the A A U W m a d e : it claims there is a direct positive correlation between self-esteem a n d academic achievement. In m a n y categories, Afri­ can-American girls are at greater risk (for low grades a n d d r o p p i n g out) than white girls or boys. African-American boys are never m e n t i o n e d in the b r o c h u r e s a n d the videos. But, if you look carefully e n o u g h in the full five-hundred-page data report from Greenberg-Lake, you find them. You also see w h y the AAUW b u r i e d a n d ignored the data on these children. T h e GreenbergLake data report informs u s that African-American boys score highest of all o n the indexes of self-esteem, "lead[ing] black girls by margins of 10 to 18 p e r c e n t o n measures of general h a p p i n e s s . " If their data are cor­ rect, a b o u t three of every four African-American boys are "always" " h a p p y the way I a m , " versus o n e in five w h i t e girls. As for the "glamour g a p , " the African-American boys t u r n out to be the m o s t confident a n d a m b i ­ tious of all. Far m o r e of t h e m p l a n to b e c o m e doctors, scientists, gover­ nors, or senators than their white counterparts. Sixty-seven percent said yes w h e n asked, "Do you really t h i n k you will ever e n d u p being a sports star?" These results m u s t have startled the designers of the survey. They claim that self-esteem, as they m e a s u r e d it by the self-reports, is directly a n d positively correlated w i t h future achievement. Isn't future achievement what all the fuss is about? So h o w is it that those w h o score highest on the 42

43

150

W H O

STOLE

FEMINISM?

AAUW's self-esteem m e a s u r e are educationally at risk, while the group with the lowest confidence does so well? W h i t e girls are getting the better grades a n d going to college in far greater n u m b e r s than any other g r o u p . These results u n d e r m i n e either the link the AAUW claims between self-esteem a n d a c a d e m i c performance or the methodology of self-report­ ing. Either way, they vitiate t h e AAUW's findings. In t h e r e p o r t itself, t h e a u t h o r s scramble to m a k e sense of these incon­ venient responses. African-American students, they speculate, "have a greater t e n d e n c y to p r o v i d e [pollsters] the 'right' answers to survey ques­ tions o n self-esteem. T h e y have learned that others depict their culture as self-hating or self-deprecating a n d strive to p u t a 'best foot forward.' " But p u t t i n g one's best foot forward is n o t k n o w n to b e a racial trait. Moreover, w h y w o u l d African-American boys d o so m o r e than AfricanAmerican girls? A n d w h y w o u l d n ' t that reason account for the discrep­ ancy of r e s p o n s e s b e t w e e n w h i t e boys a n d white girls? O n c e w e admit s u c h exceptions a n d explanations, w h a t b e c o m e s of the credibility of the "survey i n s t r u m e n t " for a n y p u r p o s e whatsoever? O n e researcher d i d try to explain w h y African-American girls have higher self-esteem scores t h a n w h i t e girls. Janie W a r d speculates that the self-esteem of African-American girls is unaffected by their academic per­ formance. "Black girls s e e m to b e maintaining high levels of self-esteem b y disassociating themselves from school," she s a y s . But w h y w o u l d only African-American girls b e so little affected? H o w d o w e k n o w that the w h i t e b o y s ' high scores are n o t d u e to their relative indifference to academic w o r t h ? Conceptually, too, the idea of a separate "academic selfesteem," s o m e h o w distinct from self-esteem proper, is incoherent. A child's p r i d e in playing the p i a n o m a y well contribute to h e r self-esteem, b u t w e w o u l d n o t call this feeling a k i n d of musical self-esteem. 44

4 5

46

If o n e takes t h e AAUW's w a y of m e a s u r i n g self-esteem seriously, then o n e s h o u l d n o w begin to take seriously the suggestion that there is an inverse relation b e t w e e n self-esteem reports a n d success in school, for that is w h a t the s t u d y actually suggests. Of course, that is exactly the opposite of w h a t the A A U W claims. Yet, it is n o t altogether o u t of the question: Asian children test very m u c h higher than American students in m a t h a n d science, yet American s t u d e n t s express far m o r e confidence in their m a t h a n d science abilities t h a n d o their Asian counterparts. In other w o r d s , o u r children r a n k near t h e b o t t o m , b u t they're "happy the way they are." This brings u s to p e r h a p s t h e m o s t serious failing of the AAUW "call to action." T h e r e p o r t begins b y telling u s that o u r children cannot thrive in the n e x t c e n t u r y unless "they b e c o m e the best educated people o n

THE

SELF-ESTEEM

151

STUDY

on Earth." But the education reform m o v e m e n t has missed the point, it continues, because "most of this debate has ignored m o r e t h a n half the people w h o s e futures are s h a p e d by the schools: g i r l s . " After that, w e hear n o m o r e a b o u t the learning gap b e t w e e n American a n d foreign children, b u t the implication is clear: the learning gap will b e b r i d g e d w h e n w e bridge the g e n d e r gap. Although that a s s u m p t i o n s o u n d s super­ ficially plausible, s u c h facts as w e have p o i n t to its unlikelihood. Professor Harold Stevenson of the University of Michigan is o n e of several researchers w h o has b e e n studying the differences b e t w e e n Amer­ ican a n d Asian s t u d e n t s in b o t h skills a n d self-esteem. His influential article in Education Digest (December 1992), "Children Deserve Better than P h o n y Self-Esteem," reported o n scholarly research d o n e over m a n y years. It did n o t rely on polls, a n d it h a d n o preconceived n o t i o n s o n w h a t the o u t c o m e w o u l d be. T h e A A U W researchers d o n o t cite his w o r k , n o r was h e invited to their r o u n d t a b l e . H e has found that t h o u g h there is a serious learning gap b e t w e e n American a n d foreign children, the Amer­ ican children are u n a w a r e of their shortcomings: 47

O u r University of Michigan research g r o u p s p e n t the last decade studying the academic performance of American s t u d e n t s , a n d o n e of o u r m o s t consistent findings is that the academic achievement of o u r s t u d e n t s is inferior to that of s t u d e n t s in m a n y other societies. . . . T h e l o w scores of the American s t u d e n t s are distressing, b u t of equal concern is the discrepancy b e t w e e n their low levels of perfor­ m a n c e a n d the positive evaluations they gave of their ability in math. 48

In m a t h , at least, it a p p e a r s that the v a u n t e d correlation between selfesteem a n d achievement does n o t hold. Instead of a bill called " G e n d e r Equity in Education," w e n e e d a bill called " C o m m o n Sense in Educa­ tion," w h i c h w o u l d oversee the w a y the g o v e r n m e n t s p e n d s m o n e y o n p h o n y education issues. T h e m e a s u r e w o u l d n o t need a very big b u d g e t , b u t it could save millions by cutting o u t u n n e e d e d projects like the ones p r o p o s e d for raising self-esteem a n d force u s instead to address directly the very real p r o b l e m s w e m u s t solve if w e are to give o u r s t u d e n t s the academic c o m p e t e n c e they n e e d a n d to w h i c h they are entitled. Meantime, the feminist alarms over the self-esteem of female adoles­ cents keep s o u n d i n g . T h e A A U W ignored the views of m a n y reputable experts o n adolescent psychology, b u t it h a d its o w n scholar a n d philos­ o p h e r in Carol Gilligan. Gilligan has written voluminously o n adolescent girls a n d their self-esteem. T h e AAUW's "Call to Action" b r o c h u r e in-

152

W H O

STOLE

FEMINISM?

v o k e d h e r a u t h o r i t y in p r o m o t i n g its findings. She is in the video. Ac­ cording to the New York Times, she was also "an advisor on the d e v e l o p m e n t of q u e s t i o n s asked in the s u r v e y . " In h e r influential b o o k In a Different Voice, Gilligan claims that w o m e n have special ways of dealing w i t h m o r a l dilemmas; she maintains that, being m o r e caring, less competitive, less abstract, a n d m o r e sensitive than m e n in m a k i n g m o r a l decisions, w o m e n speak "in a different voice." She argues that their culture of n u r t u r i n g a n d caring a n d their habits of peaceful a c c o m m o d a t i o n could b e the salvation of a world governed by hypercompetitive males a n d their habits of abstract moral reasoning. She has since a r g u e d that o u r society silences, denigrates, a n d squelches w o m ­ en's voices a n d that this often causes serious pathologies. Her recent w o r k has placed h e r at the center of the self-esteem m o v e m e n t . Gilligan's s t a n d i n g is generally higher a m o n g gender feminist intellec­ tuals t h a n a m o n g scholars at large. As her general popularity has skyrock­ eted, h e r r e p u t a t i o n as a researcher has been attacked. Professionally, Gilligan is a social psychologist concentrating on moral development. But, for w a n t of empirical evidence, she has failed to convince m a n y of her peers of the validity of h e r theories. W e n d y W o o d , the specialist in w o m e n ' s psychology at Texas A & M , voices a considered j u d g m e n t shared by m a n y professionals in the field of w o m e n ' s psychology: " I n d e p e n d e n t research in m o r a l psychology has n o t confirmed [Gilligan's] findings." 49

O n the contrary, i n d e p e n d e n t research tends to disconfirm Gilligan's thesis that there is a substantive difference in the moral psychology of m e n a n d w o m e n . Lawrence W a l k e r of the University of British Columbia has reviewed 108 studies o n g e n d e r difference in solving moral dilemmas. H e c o n c l u d e s , "Sex differences in m o r a l reasoning in late adolescence a n d y o u t h are r a r e . " William D a m o n (Brown University) a n d A n n e Colby (Radcliffe College) p o i n t o u t that t h o u g h males are viewed as m o r e ana­ lytical a n d i n d e p e n d e n t , a n d w o m e n m o r e empathetic a n d tactful, there is little evidence to s u p p o r t these stereotypes: "There is very little s u p p o r t in the psychological literature for the notion that girls are m o r e aware of others' feelings or are m o r e altruistic than boys. Sex differences in empa­ thy are inconsistently found a n d are generally very small w h e n they are reported." In The Mismeasure of Woman, the psychologist Carol Tavris reviews the literature o n sex differences a n d m o r a l development. Her assessment echoes Walker's, W o o d ' s , D a m o n ' s , a n d Colby's. Tavris says, "In study after study, researchers r e p o r t n o average differences in the k i n d of moral reasoning that m e n a n d w o m e n a p p l y . " Tavris rejects the " w o m a n is 50

51

52

THE

SELF-ESTEEM

153

STUDY

better" school of feminism for lack of convincing evidence that w o m e n are m o r e "planet-saving . . . pacifistic, e m p a t h i e or e a r t h - l o v i n g . " Even other feminist research psychologists have taken to criticizing Gilligan's findings. Faye Crosby, a psychologist at Smith College, q u e s ­ tions Gilligan's methodological a p p r o a c h : 53

Gilligan referred t h r o u g h o u t h e r b o o k to the information obtained in her studies, b u t did n o t present a n y tabulations. Indeed she never quantified anything. T h e reader never learns anything a b o u t 136 of the 144 p e o p l e from [one of h e r three studies], as only 8 are q u o t e d in the book. O n e p r o b a b l y does n o t have to b e a trained researcher to w o r r y a b o u t this t a c t i c . 54

Martha Mednick, a H o w a r d University psychologist, refers to a "spate of articles" that have challenged the validity of Gilligan's data. But she acknowledges, "The belief in a 'different voice' persists; it a p p e a r s to b e a symbol for a cluster of widely held social beliefs that argue for w o m e n ' s difference, for reasons that are quite i n d e p e n d e n t of scientific m e r i t . " Gilligan herself seems u n t o u c h e d b y the criticism a n d s h o w s little sign of tempering h e r theories or h e r m e t h o d s of research a n d reporting. H e r recent w o r k o n the "silenced voice" continues to use the s a m e anecdotal m e t h o d that Crosby a n d others have criticized. As Gilligan sees t h e m , y o u n g girls are s p o n t a n e o u s , forthright, a n d truthful, only to b e betrayed in adolescence b y a n acculturation, an acquired "patina of niceness a n d piety" that diminishes their spirit, i n d u c i n g in t h e m a k i n d of "selfsilencing." Christopher Lasch, o n e of Gilligan's sharper critics, argues that Gilli­ gan's idealized view of female children as noble, s p o n t a n e o u s , a n d n a t u ­ rally virtuous beings w h o are progressively spoiled b y a c o r r u p t i n g socialization has its roots in Jean-Jacques Rousseau's theory of education. Rousseau, however, sentimentalized boys as well as girls. Lasch insists that b o t h Rousseau a n d Gilligan are w r o n g . In particular, real girls d o n o t change from a Rousseauian ideal of natural virtue to s o m e t h i n g m o r e m u t e d , p i o u s , conformist, a n d "nice." O n the contrary, w h e n researchers look at j u n i o r high school girls w i t h o u t p r e c o n c e p t i o n s they are often struck by a glaring absence of niceness a n d piety, including the privileged private schools Gilligan studied. Of Gilligan a n d h e r associates, Lasch says: 55

56

They w o u l d have d o n e better to r e m i n d themselves, o n the strength of their o w n evidence, that w o m e n are j u s t as likely as m e n to

154

W H O

STOLE

FEMINISM?

misuse p o w e r , to relish cruelty, a n d to indulge the taste for cruelty in enforcing conformity. Study of a girls' school w o u l d seem to p r o v i d e the ideal corrective to sentimental views of w o m e n ' s natural gift for n u r t u r e a n d c o m p a s s i o n . 57

W h a t e v e r Gilligan's s h o r t c o m i n g s as an empirical psychologist may be, they s e e m n o t to matter. H e r m o s t recent b o o k on the "silenced voice," Meeting at the Crossroads, received a n adulatory review from Carolyn Heilbrun. H e i l b r u n c o n c e d e s that Gilligan's research has been challenged b u t insists that h e r c o n t r i b u t i o n remains a " l a n d m a r k in p s y c h o l o g y . " Indeed, Gilligan r e m a i n s a feminist icon w h o "valorized" w o m e n by arguing for their special gifts a n d describing their special fragilities. It was only n a t u r a l that the A A U W w o u l d t u r n to her a n d like feminists for "expert" s u p p o r t . Gilligan herself is n o t an a u t h o r of the AAUW report. It is n o t easy to d e t e r m i n e w h o the a u t h o r s are, b u t in o n e d o c u m e n t we find a n o t e t h a n k i n g N a n c y Goldberger a n d Janie Victoria W a r d , " w h o gave u s h u n d r e d s of h o u r s of expertise a n d guidance in developing the q u e s t i o n n a i r e a n d interpreting the poll d a t a . " Gilligan was W a r d ' s teacher a n d dissertation advisor at the Harvard School of Education. Dr. Goldberger, a psychologist at the Fielding Institute in Santa Barbara, is a c o a u t h o r of Women's Way of Knowing, the bible of gynocentric epistemol­ ogy. W a r d a n d Goldberger w e r e p r o b a b l y "sympathetic." H a d the AAUW c o n s u l t e d s o m e of the w e l l - k n o w n experts in the field cited in Bruce Bower's article in Science News, it is n o t at all certain that the AAUW w o u l d have h a d the clear finding of g e n d e r bias it presented to the public. 58

59

T h e Ms. F o u n d a t i o n declared April 2 8 , 1 9 9 3 , "Take O u r Daughters to W o r k Day." T h e event w a s a great success; m o r e than 5 0 0 , 0 0 0 girls w e n t to w o r k w i t h their m o t h e r s or fathers, a n d the Ms. F o u n d a t i o n expects to m a k e it a n a n n u a l event. It has created a special "Take O u r Daughters to W o r k " teacher's g u i d e , w h i c h addresses the question " W h y such extra effort o n behalf of girls?" T h e teacher's guide recites the AAUW/Gilligan formula: "Recent studies p o i n t to adolescence as a time of crisis a n d loss for girls. W h i l e m o s t girls are o u t s p o k e n a n d self-confident at the age of n i n e , levels of self-esteem p l u m m e t . . . by the time they reach high school." T h e Ms. F o u n d a t i o n h a d originally p l a n n e d to confine "Take O u r D a u g h t e r s to W o r k Day" to the N e w York City area. But then Gloria Steinem m e n t i o n e d the event in an interview in Parade magazine in w h i c h she s p o k e of girls' d r a m a t i c loss of self-esteem. According to J u d y M a n n 60

THE

SELF-ESTEEM

155

STUDY 61

of the Washington Post, the event "took off like Mother's D a y . " W h a t was Steinem's galvanizing c o m m e n t ? "At age 1 1 , girls are sure of w h a t they k n o w . . . . But at 12 or 1 3 , w h e n they take o n the feminine role, they become uncertain. They begin to say, T d o n ' t k n o w . ' Their true selves go underground." Steinem a d d e d that this m a k e s girls vulnerable to depression, teenage p r e g n a n c y , a n d even eating disorders. F r o m the day her c o m m e n t s a p p e a r e d in Parade, the Ms. F o u n d a t i o n says it w a s i n u n ­ dated with c a l l s — m o r e t h a n five h u n d r e d p e r day. T h e event quickly developed into a national h a p p e n i n g . T h e foundation p r e p a r e d informa­ tion kits, a teacher's guide, leaflets, fliers, a n d p a m p h l e t s , even a "minimagazine" a n d T-shirts. T h e advisory c o m m i t t e e established to h e l p organize the day included s o m e of the N e w Feminism's brightest stars: Mario T h o m a s , Gloria Steinem, Carol Gilligan, N a o m i Wolf, a n d Callie Khouri (the scriptwriter of Thelma and Louise). 62

63

The t h e m e of the event w a s that for o n e day, at least, girls w o u l d b e "visible, valued, a n d heard." As for the boys left b e h i n d at school, the Ms. F o u n d a t i o n suggested they s p e n d the day d o i n g exercises to h e l p t h e m u n d e r s t a n d h o w o u r society shortchanges w o m e n . T h e teacher's g u i d e suggests that boys p o n d e r the question "In the classroom, w h o speaks more, boys or girls?" Using "guided imagery," the teacher is s u p p o s e d to ask t h e m to imagine themselves living inside a box: 6 4

Describe the b o x to them: its size, airholes a n d light (if any). Ask t h e m to reach o u t a n d t o u c h the roof a n d the sides with their h a n d s . N o w m a k e the b o x even smaller. W h i l e their eyes are still closed ask them: " W h a t if you w a n t to get o u t of the b o x a n d you c a n ' t ? . . . W h a t d o people say to girls to keep t h e m in a box? W h a t h a p p e n s to girls w h o step outside of the b o x ? "

T h e object is to get boys "to experience the limitations defined b y gender." So the girls are off for a fun day w i t h their parents, being "visible, valued, a n d h e a r d , " a n d the boys are left b e h i n d to learn their lesson. I a m not o p p o s e d to the idea of taking a child to w o r k ( t h o u g h I t h i n k it should be d o n e in the s u m m e r , to avoid missing a school day). I a m s u r e m a n y parents a n d d a u g h t e r s h a d a g o o d experience. But if having chil­ dren j o i n p a r e n t s for a day at w o r k is a g o o d idea, t h e n boys m u s t n o t b e excluded. Of course, boys m u s t learn to b e thoughtful a n d respectful of girls, b u t they are n o t culprits; they are n o t silencing girls or lowering their self-esteem, a n d n o o n e s h o u l d b e s e n d i n g the boys the message that 65

156

W H O

STOLE

FEMINISM?

they are d o i n g a n y of these things. A day that singles o u t the girls inevi­ tably conveys that k i n d of message. T h e g e n d e r feminist self-esteem alarm s h o u l d n o t be allowed to be­ c o m e t h e m a t i c in o u r p u b l i c schools. T h e Ms. F o u n d a t i o n is n o w m a k i n g an all-out effort to m a k e April 2 8 a n a n n u a l girls' holiday. That should n o t b e allowed. Parents a n d school officials m u s t step in to insist that a day w i t h p a r e n t s m u s t b e g e n d e r - n e u t r a l a n d nondivisive; it m u s t include the s o n s as well as the d a u g h t e r s .

Chapter 8

The Wellesley Report: A Gender at Risk

The American Association of University W o m e n h a d every reason to be gratified a n d exhilarated by the p u b l i c success of the self-esteem re­ port. It h a d "proved" that American girls " d o n o t believe in themselves." T h e association m o v e d quickly to c o m m i s s i o n a second study. This n e w study w o u l d s h o w how schoolgirls are being u n d e r m i n e d a n d p o i n t to remedies. Its a d v e n t was a n n o u n c e d b y Sharon Schuster: "The survey a n d the r o u n d t a b l e are j u s t the first steps in AAUW's effort to stimulate a national discussion o n h o w o u r s c h o o l s — a n d o u r entire s o c i e t y — c a n encourage girls to believe in themselves. . . . W e have a w a r d e d a grant to the Wellesley College Center for Research o n W o m e n to review the grow­ ing b o d y of research o n h o w girls l e a r n . " 1

The Wellesley Report w a s c o m p l e t e d in 1 9 9 2 , a year after the selfesteem report was released. N o t surprisingly, it a p p e a r e d to dramatically reinforce the tragic tidings of the earlier report. T h e AAUW h a d called the self-esteem s t u d y "Shortchanging Girls, Shortchanging America"; they called the Wellesley Report " H o w Schools Shortchange Girls."

158

W H O

STOLE

FEMINISM?

T h e A A U W distributed the findings in attractive little booklets a n d p a m p h l e t s , p r o v i d i n g all interested parties, especially journalists, with convenient s u m m a r i e s a n d highlights that could serve as the basis for their stories. W r i t i n g the foreword for the n e w report, Alice McKee, p r e s i d e n t of the A A U W Educational F o u n d a t i o n , repeated a n d reinforced the t h e m e of the AAUW's first study: "The wealth of statistical evidence m u s t convince even the m o s t skeptical that gender bias in our schools is s h o r t c h a n g i n g g i r l s — a n d c o m p r o m i s i n g o u r country. . . . The evidence is in, a n d the p i c t u r e is clear: shortchanging g i r l s — t h e w o m e n of tomor­ row—shortchanges America." 2

T h e Wellesley revelations t u r n e d o u t to b e even m o r e newsworthy than the Greenberg-Lake poll o n self-esteem, generating m o r e than fourteen h u n d r e d stories b y journalists a n d newscasters. T h e San Francisco Chron­ icle r e p o r t e d the "Dreadful W a s t e of Female T a l e n t . " "Powerful Impact of Bias Against Girls," cried the Los Angeles Times.* Time magazine in­ formed its readers that "the latest research finds that the gender gap goes well b e y o n d b o y s ' persistent edge in m a t h a n d science." The Boston Globe e m p h a s i z e d the distress of girls: " F r o m the very first days in school American girls face a drum-fire of g e n d e r bias, ranging from sexual ha­ r a s s m e n t to discrimination in the c u r r i c u l u m to lack of attention from teachers, a c c o r d i n g to a survey released today in W a s h i n g t o n . " The New York Times w e i g h e d in w i t h "Bias Against Girls Is F o u n d Rife in Schools, w i t h Lasting D a m a g e . " 3

5

6

7

T h e A A U W w a s q u i c k to seize o n the largesse provided by a coopera­ tive a n d trusting press. Most of the press stories cited above were re­ p r i n t e d in b r o c h u r e s s h o w i n g h o w "AAUW is m a k i n g headlines." The w h o l e of Time magazine's adulatory article became part of the AAUW's p r o m o t i o n a l packet. O n c e again, the release of a sensational AAUW study was the occasion for a gathering of p e o p l e w h o w o u l d b e influential in the association's call for action o n the federal level. O n April 2 7 - 2 9 , 1992, the Council on F o u n d a t i o n s , an organization of leaders of the most powerful philan­ t h r o p i c organizations in America, m e t at the Fountainbleau Hilton Resort in Miami Beach. T h e A A U W a n d Wellesley feminist researchers held a w i n e a n d cheese p a r t y for the p h i l a n t h r o p i s t s — c o m p l e t e with h a n d ­ somely p r o d u c e d information kits that a n n o u n c e d the Wellesley results, hailing their significance a n d pleading the urgent need for funding. Susan Faludi delivered a k e y n o t e a d d r e s s o n "the undeclared w a r against Amer­ ican w o m e n . " T h e n e x t step w a s already in the w o r k s . T h e $ 3 6 0 million "Gender Equity in E d u c a t i o n " bill w a s i n t r o d u c e d in Congress in April of 1993 by

THE

WELLESLEY

159

REPORT 8

the bipartisan Congressional C a u c u s for W o m e n ' s Issues. A m o n g the bill's sponsors were Patricia Schroeder, Olympia Snowe, Susan Molinari, Patsy Mink, C o n n i e Morella, Nita Lowey, Dale Kildee, Lynn Woolsey, Cardiss Collins, Jolene Unsoeld, a n d Louise Slaughter. T h e G e n d e r Equity in Education Act (H.R. 1793) w o u l d establish a p e r m a n e n t a n d wellfunded g e n d e r equity bureaucracy. It calls for an Office of W o m e n ' s Equity within the D e p a r t m e n t of Education, charged with " p r o m o t i n g a n d coordinating w o m e n ' s equity policies, p r o g r a m s , activities a n d initia­ tives in all federal education p r o g r a m s a n d offices." Politically, a bill calling for g e n d e r equity w o u l d seem to have clear sailing apart from any merits it m i g h t or m i g h t n o t have. O n the o n e h a n d , it offered s o m e m e m b e r s of Congress a w e l c o m e o p p o r t u n i t y to s h o w they were sensitive to w o m e n ' s issues. O n the other h a n d , the dangers of challenging the AAUW or the Wellesley College Center for Research on W o m e n were obvious. C o n g r e s s w o m a n Patricia Schroeder cited the Wellesley Report in intro­ ducing the bill. For her, the report was an u n q u e s t i o n e d source of truth: our nation's girls are being systematically u n d e r m i n e d , a n d Congress m u s t act. In September of 1 9 9 3 , Senators E d w a r d Kennedy, T o m H a r k i n , Carol Moseley-Braun, Paul Simon, a n d Barbara Mikulski i n t r o d u c e d a Senate version of the G e n d e r Equity in Education Act. Referring to the Wellesley Report, Senator K e n n e d y said: [It] "refutes the c o m m o n as­ s u m p t i o n that boys a n d girls are treated equally in o u r educational sys­ tem. Clearly they are n o t . " 9

The officers of the powerful foundations w h o h a d b e e n feted b y the AAUW in Miami were represented by W a l t e e n Grady Truely, w h o a p ­ peared before the congressional s u b c o m m i t t e e to argue for the G e n d e r Equity in Education Act. She duly p o i n t e d o u t that "girls' self-esteem p l u m m e t s b e t w e e n pre-adolescence a n d the 10th g r a d e . " Like Pat Schroeder, Olympia Snowe, Senator Kennedy, a n d others, Ms. Truely appears to have trusted the AAUW b r o c h u r e s . Everyone expects the bill to pass. T h e National Council for Research on W o m e n was h a p p y to report the AAUW's success as an inspiring example of h o w w o m e n ' s research can lead directly to congressional action: 10

Last year a report by the American Association of University W o m e n (AAUW) d o c u m e n t e d serious inequities in education for girls a n d w o m e n . As a result of that w o r k , an o m n i b u s package of legislation, the G e n d e r Equity in Education Act (H.R. 1793), was recently intro­ d u c e d in the H o u s e of Representatives. . . . T h e introduction of H.R.

160

W H O

STOLE

FEMINISM?

1 7 9 3 is a milestone for d e m o n s t r a t i n g valuable linkages between feminist research a n d policy in investigating gender discrimination in e d u c a t i o n . 11

T h a t the linkages are of value to those doing the research is u n q u e s ­ tionable. W h a t is highly questionable is the value a n d integrity of the research a n d the w a y the advocates have deployed the "findings" to acti­ vate the United States Congress.

Are girls really being insidiously d a m a g e d by our school systems? That question actually r e m a i n s to b e investigated. Everyone k n o w s we need to i m p r o v e o u r schools, b u t are the girls worse off than the boys? If one does insist o n focusing o n w h o is worse off, then it doesn't take long to see that, educationally speaking, boys are the weaker gender. Consider that today 5 5 p e r c e n t of college s t u d e n t s are female. In 1 9 7 1 , w o m e n received 4 3 p e r c e n t of the bachelor's degrees, 4 0 percent of the master's degrees, a n d 14 p e r c e n t of the doctorates. By 1989 the figures grew to 52 percent for B.A.'s, 5 2 p e r c e n t for M.A.'s, a n d 3 6 percent for doctoral degrees. W o m e n are still b e h i n d m e n in earning doctorates, b u t according to the U.S. D e p a r t m e n t of Education, the n u m b e r of doctorates awarded to w o m e n has increased b y 185 p e r c e n t since 1 9 7 1 . 12

T h e Wellesley s t u d y gives a lot of attention to h o w girls are b e h i n d in m a t h a n d science, t h o u g h the m a t h a n d science test differentials are small c o m p a r e d to large differentials favoring girls in reading a n d writing. O n the National Assessment of Education Progress Tests (NAEP), adminis­ tered to seventeen-year-olds in 1990, males outperformed females by three p o i n t s in m a t h a n d eleven p o i n t s in science. The girls outperformed boys b y thirteen p o i n t s in reading a n d twenty-four points in w r i t i n g . Girls o u t n u m b e r boys in all extracurricular activities except sports a n d h o b b y clubs. Almost twice as m a n y girls as boys participate in student g o v e r n m e n t , b a n d a n d orchestra, a n d d r a m a or service clubs. More girls w o r k o n the s c h o o l n e w s p a p e r s a n d yearbooks. More are m e m b e r s of h o n o r a n d service societies. Boys far o u t n u m b e r girls in sports, b u t that gap is n a r r o w i n g each year. In 1972, only 4 percent of girls were in high school athletic p r o g r a m s . By 1 9 8 7 the figure was u p to 26 percent, m o r e t h a n a sixfold i n c r e a s e . O n the p u r e l y a c a d e m i c front, progress continues apace. The UCLA Higher E d u c a t i o n Research Institute's a n n u a l survey of college freshmen s h o w s m o r e w o m e n (66 percent) than m e n (63 percent) planning to p u r s u e a d v a n c e d d e g r e e s . T h e UCLA data s h o w a tripling in the per13

14

15

16

THE

WELLESLEY

REPORT

161

centage of w o m e n aiming for higher degrees in less than twenty-five years. As the institute's director, Alexander Astin, notes, "To close s u c h a w i d e gap in the relatively short s p a n of t w o decades is truly remarkable." David Merkowitz of the American Council o n Education agrees: "If you w a n t a long-term indicator of major social change, this is o n e . " But indicators that girls are d o i n g well are n o t the stuff of the Wellesley Report. The report illegitimately bolsters its "shortchanged girls" thesis by omitting all c o m p a r i s o n s of boys a n d girls in areas w h e r e boys are clearly in trouble. In a s t u d y of self-reports by high school seniors, the U.S. D e p a r t m e n t of Education found that m o r e boys t h a n girls cut classes, fail to d o h o m e w o r k assignments, h a d disciplinary p r o b l e m s , h a d b e e n sus­ p e n d e d , a n d h a d b e e n in trouble w i t h the p o l i c e . Studying transcripts of 1982 high school graduates, the D e p a r t m e n t of Education found girls outperforming boys in all subjects, from m a t h to English to s c i e n c e . It also learned that in all racial a n d ethnic g r o u p s , "females were generally m o r e likely t h a n males to r e p o r t their p a r e n t s w a n t e d t h e m to a t t e n d college." T h e Wellesley researchers looked at girls' better grades in m a t h a n d science classes a n d c o n c l u d e d that the standardized tests m u s t b e biased. Girls get better grades, b u t boys are d o i n g better o n the tests. But their conclusion w o u l d have h a d m o r e credibility h a d they also considered the possibility that there could b e a grading bias against boys. According to the 1 9 9 2 Digest of Educational Statistics, m o r e boys d r o p out. Between 1980 a n d 1982, 19 p e r c e n t of males a n d 15 p e r c e n t of females b e t w e e n the tenth a n d twelfth grade d r o p p e d out of school. Boys are m o r e likely to b e r o b b e d , threatened, a n d attacked in a n d o u t of school. J u s t a b o u t every p a t h o l o g y — i n c l u d i n g alcoholism a n d d r u g a b u s e — h i t s boys h a r d e r . According to the Wellesley Report, "adoles­ cent girls are four to five times m o r e likely t h a n boys to a t t e m p t sui­ c i d e . " It m e n t i o n s parenthetically that m o r e boys actually die. It d o e s not say that five times as m a n y boys as girls actually succeed in killing themselves. For boys fifteen to twenty-four the figure is 2 1 . 9 p e r 1 0 0 , 0 0 0 ; for girls it is 4 . 2 p e r 100,000. T h e a d u l t suicide rate is n o t very different. In the United States in 1990, 2 4 , 7 2 4 m e n a n d 6,182 w o m e n c o m m i t t e d s u i c i d e . W h a t w o u l d the Wellesley investigators a n d other advocates have m a d e of these statistics were the n u m b e r s reversed? 17

18

19

20

21

22

T h e tribulations of schoolboys are n o t a n u r g e n t concern of the lead­ ership of the AAUW; its interest is in studies that uncover bias against girls a n d w o m e n . For details o n h o w American girls are suffering from inequitable t r e a t m e n t in the nation's classrooms, the Wellesley investiga­ tors relied heavily o n the expertise of Myra a n d David Sadker of the

162

W H O

STOLE

FEMINISM?

American University School of Education, w h o h a d already found just the k i n d of thing the A A U W w a s c o n c e r n e d about: "In a study conducted by Myra a n d David Sadker, boys in elementary a n d m i d d l e school called out answers eight times m o r e often than girls. W h e n boys called out, teachers listened. But w h e n girls called out, they were told to 'raise your h a n d if you w a n t to speak.' " T h e telling difference in "call-outs" has become a favorite w i t h those w h o seek to s h o w h o w girls are being cheated. Pat Schroeder faithfully e c h o e d the claim in introducing the Gender Equity in Education Act: "Teachers are m o r e likely to call on boys a n d to give t h e m constructive feedback. W h e n boys call out answers, teachers tend to listen to their c o m m e n t s . But girls w h o call out their answers are r e p r i m a n d e d a n d told to raise their h a n d s . " T h e Sadkers have b e e n observing teachers in the classroom for m o r e t h a n t w o decades, gathering their data on gender bias. Convinced that "America's schools cheat girls," as the subtitle of their n e w book, Failing at Fairness, claims, they have devised strategies for ridding teachers (a majority of w h o m h a p p e n to b e w o m e n ) of their unconscious gender bias that the Sadkers feel is at the root of the problem. T h e Sadkers' latest b o o k describes their w o r k as the " b a c k b o n e " of the Wellesley Report, a n d they are a m o n g the report's chief a u t h o r s . Certainly their w o r k provided key s u p p o r t for the report's claim that "whether o n e looks at preschool classrooms or university lecture halls, at female teachers or male teachers, research s p a n n i n g the past twenty years consistently reveals that males receive m o r e teacher attention t h a n d o females." Teachers t e n d n o t to b e surprised to hear that boys in their classes may b e getting m o r e a t t e n t i o n — b o y s t e n d to b e rowdier in the classrooms a n d to require m o r e supervision. But is that a sign or form of discrimina­ tion? Despite their d e c a d e s of attention to the p r o b l e m , the Sadkers s u p ­ ply us w i t h n o plausible evidence that girls are losing out because teachers are less attentive to t h e m . Instead, they argue that it stands to reason: "The m o s t valuable resource in a classroom is the teacher's attention. If the teacher is giving m o r e of that valuable resource to o n e g r o u p , it should c o m e as n o surprise that g r o u p s h o w s greater educational g a i n s . " As w e have seen, however, the evidence suggests that it is boys w h o are suffering an overall academic deficit. Boys d o perform slightly better o n s t a n d a r d i z e d m a t h tests, b u t even that gap is small, a n d closing. In the 1 9 9 1 International Assessment of Educational Progress (IAEP), the Edu­ cational Testing Service found that o n a scale of 100, thirteen-year-old American girls average 1 p o i n t below boys. And this slight gap is alto­ gether negligible in c o m p a r i s o n w i t h the gap that separates American 2 3

2 4

25

26

THE

WELLESLEY

163

REPORT

students from their foreign counterparts. Taiwanese a n d Korean girls are m o r e than 16 p o i n t s a h e a d of American boys o n this same t e s t . In addition to m e a s u r i n g abilities, the Educational Testing Service asked s t u d e n t s a r o u n d the w o r l d w h e t h e r or n o t they t h o u g h t m a t h was "for boys a n d girls equally." In m o s t countries, including the United States, almost all s t u d e n t s agreed it was. T h e exceptions were Korea, Taiwan, a n d J o r d a n . In Korea, 2 7 p e r c e n t said that m a t h was m o r e for boys; for Taiwan a n d J o r d a n , the figure was 15 percent. "Interestingly," the report notes, "the three countries that w e r e m o r e likely to view m a t h ­ ematics as g e n d e r linked . . . did n o t exhibit significant differences in performance b y g e n d e r . " A n d girls in two of those c o u n t r i e s — K o r e a a n d T a i w a n — o u t p e r f o r m e d American boys. F r o m the IAEP at least, it a p p e a r s that gender-linked attitudes a b o u t m a t h are n o t strongly correlated to performance. T h e Educational Testing Service did find o n e key variable positively related w i t h achievement t h r o u g h o u t the world: the a m o u n t of time s t u d e n t s s p e n t o n their m a t h h o m e w o r k — i r r e s p e c t i v e of gender. Despite this, the Wellesley Report sticks to its g u n s . Tackling the gender p r o b l e m is the first priority in m a k i n g America educationally strong for the global e c o n o m y of the future. In any case, g e n d e r inequity in the form of teacher inattention to girls is w h a t the Sadkers' research is all about, a n d m a n y of the Wellesley conclusions s t a n d or fall w i t h their expertise a n d probity. T h e Sadkers, w h o collected data from m o r e t h a n o n e h u n d r e d fourth-, sixth-, a n d eighth-grade classes, reportedly found that boys did n o t merely get m o r e r e p r i m a n d s b u t received m o r e feedback of all kinds: "Classrooms w e r e characterized by a m o r e general e n v i r o n m e n t of inequity: there w e r e the 'haves' a n d the 'have n o t s ' of teacher attention. . . . Male s t u d e n t s received significantly m o r e remediation, criticism, a n d praise t h a n female stu­ dents." H o w m u c h is that? I w o n d e r e d . A n d h o w well, if at all, is the disparity in attention correlated with a disparity in s t u d e n t achievement? I w a s curious to read the Sadkers' research papers. T h e Wellesley Report leads readers to the Phi Delta Kappan for technical details o n the Sadkers' findings. But the Phi Delta Kappan is n o t a research j o u r n a l , a n d the Sadkers' publications in it are very s h o r t — l e s s t h a n four pages each, including illustrations a n d c a r t o o n s — a n d merely restate the Sadkers' claims w i t h o u t giving details concerning the research that backs t h e m u p . In two exhaustive searches in the education data base (ERIC), I w a s unable to find a n y peer-reviewed, scholarly articles by the Sadkers in 27

28

29

164

W H O

STOLE

FEMINISM?

w h i c h their data a n d their claims o n classroom interactions are laid out. T h e Sadkers themselves m a k e n o reference to such articles in the Welles­ ley Report, n o r in their 1 9 9 1 review of the literature on gender bias in the Review of Research in Education, n o r in Failing at Fairness. The Welles­ ley Report does refer readers to the final reports on the Sadkers' u n p u b ­ lished studies o n classroom inequities. T h e Sadkers did two of these, in 1 9 8 4 a n d 1 9 8 5 , b o t h s u p p o r t e d by g o v e r n m e n t grants. The first is called Year Three: Final Report, Promoting Effectiveness in Classroom Instruction (funded b y the National Institute of Education, 1984); the other is called Final Report: Faculty Development for Effectiveness and Equity in College Teaching ( s p o n s o r e d b y the F u n d for the I m p r o v e m e n t of Post-Secondary E d u c a t i o n — F I P S E — 1 9 8 5 ) . Since the conclusions of the Wellesley Re­ p o r t rely o n studies like these, I was d e t e r m i n e d to get hold of them. But I found it even h a r d e r to get m y h a n d s on t h e m than on the AAUW's research o n self-esteem. T h e 1 9 8 5 FIPSE s t u d y seems to have vanished altogether. After ex­ haustive library a n d c o m p u t e r searches, I called the D e p a r t m e n t of Edu­ cation, w h i c h informed m e it n o longer h a d a copy. The librarian at the W i d e n e r Library at Harvard University did a c o m p u t e r search as t h o r o u g h a n d high-tech as a n y I have ever seen. Finally, she requested it from the Library of Congress. "If they d o n o t have it, n o one does," she s a i d — a n d they d i d not. In the m e a n t i m e , o n e of m y u n d e r g r a d u a t e assistants called David Sadker himself to ask h o w to find it. H e told her that he did not have a copy a n d u r g e d h e r to have a look at the article in the Phi Delta Kappan. W e h a d c o m e full circle. I did find the o t h e r study: Year Three: Final Report, Promoting Effective­ ness in Classroom Instruction. It was available in the Education Library at H a r v a r d University o n microfilm, for twenty-five cents p e r page. Holding the 189 pages p h o t o c o p i e d from the microfilm, I w o n d e r e d if I might be the only p e r s o n in the w o r l d — b e s i d e s the Sadkers a n d s o m e of their g r a d u a t e s t u d e n t s — t o have looked at its contents. Yet it contains the data b e h i n d the c o n t e n t i o n , n o w o n the tip of m a n y politicians' tongues, that girls are suffering a n attention gap that seriously compromises their edu­ cation. W h a t h a d the Sadkers found? They a n d their assistants visited h u n d r e d s of elementary classrooms a n d observed the teachers' interac­ tions w i t h s t u d e n t s . T h e y identified four types of teacher c o m m e n t s : praise ("Good answer"), acceptance ("Okay"), remediation ("Give it an­ other try; t h i n k a littler h a r d e r this time"), a n d criticism ("Wrong"). They d e t e r m i n e d that fewer t h a n 5 p e r c e n t of teachers' interactions constituted

THE

WELLESLEY

165

REPORT

criticism. Praise a c c o u n t e d for a b o u t 11 p e r c e n t of interaction; 3 3 p e r c e n t was remediation. T h e r e m a i n d e r (approximately 5 1 - 5 6 percent) was bland a c c e p t a n c e . A l t h o u g h boys a n d girls got close to the s a m e a m o u n t of b l a n d acceptance ("Okay"), boys got a larger share of the other cate­ gories. T h e exact n u m b e r is difficult to d e t e r m i n e from the data. In their m a n y p u b l i s h e d articles, the Sadkers generally d o n o t specify the actual size of the difference, b u t instead m a k e claims a b o u t discrepancies w i t h ­ out specifying t h e m : "Girls received less t h a n their share in all cate­ gories." In the k i n d of observations the Sadkers a n d their researchers m a d e , the chances of observer bias in selecting the data are extraordinarily high. It is all too easy to "find" j u s t w h a t o n e believes is there. As I have n o t e d , the Wellesley Report relies strongly o n research by the Sadkers that p u r ­ portedly found boys calling o u t eight times m o r e often t h a n girls, w i t h boys being respectfully a t t e n d e d to, while the relatively few girls w h o called o u t were told to "please raise y o u r h a n d s if you w a n t to speak." Professor Jere Brophy of Michigan State, w h o is p e r h a p s the m o s t p r o m i ­ nent scholar w o r k i n g in the area of classroom interaction, is suspicious of the Sadkers' findings o n call-outs. "It is too extreme," h e says. "It all d e p e n d s o n the n e i g h b o r h o o d , the level of the class, a n d the teacher. Many teachers simply d o n o t allow call-outs." I asked h i m a b o u t the Sadkers' claim that boys get m o r e careful a n d thoughtful teacher c o m ­ ments. According to Brophy, a n y differences that are s h o w i n g u p are negligibly slight. Did h e see a link b e t w e e n the ways teachers interact with boys a n d girls a n d their overall achievement? " N o , a n d that is w h y I have never tried to m a k e that m u c h of the sex difference findings." 30

31

For details of the Sadkers' findings, the Wellesley Report refers to research r e p o r t e d in a 1 9 8 1 v o l u m e of a j o u r n a l called The Pointer. The Pointer is n o w defunct, b u t w h e n I finally got to read the article I w a s surprised to see that w h a t it said a b o u t classroom discipline in particular was not, in m y view, at all indicative of bias against girls. This p o r t i o n of the Pointer article focuses n o t o n "call-outs," b u t o n h o w teachers repri­ m a n d boys a n d girls differently, emphasizing that boys are disciplined m o r e than girls. Here is w h a t the Sadkers a n d their coauthor, D a w n T h o m a s , found: 32

Boys, particularly low-achieving boys, receive eight to ten times as m a n y r e p r i m a n d s as d o their female classmates. . . . W h e n b o t h girls a n d boys are misbehaving equally, boys still receive m o r e frequent discipline. Research s h o w s that w h e n teachers are faced w i t h d i s r u p ­ tive behavior from b o t h boys a n d girls, they are over three times as

166

W H O

STOLE

FEMINISM?

likely to r e p r i m a n d the boys t h a n the girls. Also, boys are m o r e likely to get r e p r i m a n d e d in a h a r s h a n d public m a n n e r a n d to receive heavy penalties; girls are m o r e likely to get r e p r i m a n d e d in a softer, private m a n n e r a n d to receive lighter p e n a l t i e s . 33

T h e article says n o t h i n g at all a b o u t "call-outs," a n d n o t h i n g about girls being told to raise their h a n d s if they w a n t to speak. Yet it is cited as the source for the Report's oft-repeated claims a b o u t this matter. Thinking that I m u s t b e in error, I looked at a 1 9 9 1 article in the Review of Research in Education b y the Sadkers themselves, in w h i c h they, too, cite the re­ search r e p o r t e d in the Pointer article: D. Sadker, Sadker, a n d T h o m a s (1981) reported that boys were eight times m o r e likely t h a n girls to call out in elementary- a n d m i d d l e - s c h o o l classrooms. W h e n boys called out, the teacher's most frequent r e s p o n s e w a s to accept the call-out a n d continue with the class. W h e n girls called out, a m u c h rarer p h e n o m e n o n , the teach­ er's m o s t typical r e s p o n s e was to remediate or correct the i n a p p r o ­ priate behavior w i t h c o m m e n t s s u c h as "in this class, w e raise o u r hands." 3 4

But the Sadkers are m i s q u o t i n g themselves; The Pointer contains n o s u c h findings. S u p p o r t for the Sadkers' claim a b o u t "call-outs" may well exist. But p u t t i n g aside b o t h the Wellesley Report a n d the Sadkers' appar­ ent error in citing the Pointer article for s u p p o r t , o n e can note that the claim a b o u t "call-outs" k e e p s the d r u m s of outrage beating a n d gives fuel to t h e n o t i o n that A m e r i c a n girls " s p e n d years learning the lessons of silence in elementary, secondary, a n d college classrooms," after w h i c h they find it difficult or impossible to "regain their v o i c e s . " S u p p o s e , i n d e e d , that teachers d o call on boys m o r e often. There is n o clear evidence that girls lose because of that. Girls are getting the better grades, they like s c h o o l better, they d r o p out less, a n d m o r e of t h e m go to college. If teacher attention w e r e crudely to be correlated with s t u d e n t achievement, w e w o u l d b e led to the perverse conclusion that m o r e attention causes p o o r e r performance. In a n y case, I c o u l d find n o s t u d y s h o w i n g a direct relation between teacher a n d s t u d e n t interaction a n d s t u d e n t o u t p u t . Looking back at the Sadkers' Year Three: Final Report, I notice that they, too, acknowledge that "at this p o i n t it is n o t possible to d r a w direct cause a n d effect links b e t w e e n teacher behavior a n d s t u d e n t o u t c o m e s . " T h e Wellesley Report cites other studies supposedly corroborative of 35

36

THE

WELLESLEY

167

REPORT

the claim that teachers' inattention inequitably shortchanges America's schoolgirls. But again, the sources cited d o n o t m a k e the case. For exam­ ple, a g o v e r n m e n t s t u d y entitled Final Report: A Study of Sex Equity in Classroom Education b y Marlaine Lockheed, an education specialist in the Education a n d Social Policy D e p a r t m e n t at the W o r l d Bank, does say that boys get m o r e teacher reaction; however, in s u m m i n g u p h e r findings, Lockheed denies that this is to b e interpreted in terms of g e n d e r inequity: "Data from the s t u d y d o n o t s u p p o r t the n o t i o n that classroom teachers play a major role in creating a n d maintaining inequities. Despite findings that boys are m o r e disruptive (and t h u s receive m o r e teacher attention), data suggest that teachers r e s p o n d to the n a t u r e of the s t u d e n t behavior rather t h a n to s t u d e n t g e n d e r . " 37

Another s t u d y cited in the report w a r n s that "at this point, all c o m ­ m e n t s on the potential effects of various p a t t e r n s of teacher-child behavior on social a n d cognitive d e v e l o p m e n t are highly s p e c u l a t i v e . " T h e r e p o r t also includes a reference to a 1 9 8 9 survey b y M. Gail J o n e s . T h e article does n o t itself contain a n y original data, b u t rather gives a brief s u m m a r y of twenty articles o n bias in classroom interaction. F r o m Jones's survey, the s t u d i e s — s o m e better designed t h a n o t h e r s — a p p e a r to b e inconclu­ sive. Many researchers find m o r e teacher interaction w i t h the r o w d i e r b o y s — b u t n o n e have s h o w n that it h a r m s the girls. A 1 9 8 7 s t u d y b y K. Tobin a n d P. Garnett h a d found that a few "target" s t u d e n t s in the science classroom t e n d e d to d o m i n a t e classroom interactions, a n d these targets t e n d e d to b e m a l e s . But a further s t u d y of target s t u d e n t s by J o n e s herself found that "although there were m o r e male t h a n female target students, the female target s t u d e n t s averaged m o r e interactions p e r class session t h a n male target s t u d e n t s . " T h a t k i n d of result is typical of the status of research in this area. It m a k e s o n e w o n d e r w h e t h e r the s t u d y of student-teacher interaction, using g e n d e r as a key category a n d " u n c o n ­ scious bias" as a possible parameter, is w o r t h all the trouble. 38

39

40

41

O d d l y e n o u g h , the a u t h o r s of the Wellesley Report d o m e n t i o n , almost as an aside, that " n e w evidence indicates that it is too s o o n to state a definitive connection between a specific teacher behavior a n d a particular s t u d e n t o u t c o m e . " T h e report does n o t say w h a t this n e w evidence is a n d never m e n t i o n s it again. N o r are w e told w h y the existence of s u c h evidence does n o t vitiate the report's sensational conclusion that g e n d e r bias favoring boys is rife a n d its correction a matter of national urgency. To p u t it mildly, the literature o n the subject of classroom bias seems confusing a n d n o t a little confused. 42

168

W H O

STOLE

FEMINISM?

T h e advocacy research o n classroom bias w o u l d n o t matter m u c h were it n o t for the lack of skepticism on the part of legislators w h o n o w see g e n d e r equity in the classroom as a critical national issue. The testimony of A n n e Bryant, the executive director of the AAUW, before Congress in April 1 9 9 3 in favor of the G e n d e r Equity in Education Act is typical of w h a t it has heard: Myra a n d David Sadker of the American University a n d other re­ searchers have extensively d o c u m e n t e d gender bias in teachers t u d e n t interactions. . . . Teachers tend to give girls less attention, w i t h s o m e studies s h o w i n g teachers directing 8 0 percent of all their questions to b o y s . 43

In h e r presentation, Ms. Bryant indicated that the AAUW h a d w o r k e d w i t h the Congressional C a u c u s o n W o m e n ' s Issues to develop the bill a n d v o w e d that "we will c o n t i n u e to w o r k with you as the o m n i b u s educational equity p a c k a g e moves t h r o u g h C o n g r e s s . " It w a s a close relationship. T h e w o r d i n g of the bill echoed that of the AAUW brochure: 44

Research reveals that, at all classroom levels, girls receive different t r e a t m e n t from teachers t h a n d o boys. . . . To address this p r o b l e m , this legislation w o u l d create p r o g r a m s to provide teacher training in identifying a n d eliminating inequitable practices in the classroom. 45

M e m b e r s of Congress have c o m p e t e n t a n d intelligent staffs w h o are a c c u s t o m e d to c h e c k i n g u p o n all k i n d s of claims m a d e by special interest g r o u p s . O n e h o p e s they will look into the data b e h i n d the AAUW a n d Wellesley b r o c h u r e s before voting millions of dollars for the Gender Eq­ uity Act a n d reaping u s the bitter fruits of the AAUW's irresponsible a n d divisive initiative.

Because of the key role the Sadkers were playing in the AAUW a n d Wellesley initiatives, I w a s curious to find out m o r e a b o u t them. The o p p o r t u n i t y c a m e w h e n I was invited to participate in a discussion of g e n d e r bias in the schools o n the PBS radio s h o w "Talk of the N a t i o n . " T h e p r o d u c e r explained that there w o u l d b e four of us: the Sadkers, Sharon S t e i n d a m , a school administrator from Arlington, Virginia, a n d m e . I k n e w n o t h i n g a b o u t Ms. Steindam, b u t the PBS p r o d u c e r told m e she h a d s o m e familiarity w i t h the Sadkers' gender bias w o r k s h o p s a n d 46

THE

WELLESLEY

REPORT

169

was p r e p a r e d to discuss the difficulties of applying their r e c o m m e n d a ­ tions in the classroom. For m y part, I was grateful to have the o p i n i o n of an experienced educator. O n c e o n the air, the Sadkers held forth o n their ideas. I raised q u e s ­ tions a b o u t their research m e t h o d s a n d conclusions. After a while, the mediator, Ira Glass, i n t r o d u c e d Dr. Steindam as s o m e o n e w h o w a s p r e ­ pared to talk a b o u t " s o m e of the problems of being a t t u n e d to g e n d e r bias in the classroom" (his emphasis). But Dr. Steindam h a d n o p r o b l e m to report. She h a d only the highest praise for the Sadkers' p r o g r a m a n d she told us h o w "aghast" teachers were to discover h o w sexist they h a d been. Ira Glass clearly h a d n o t expected this response. He said: " N o w w e r e there problems i m p l e m e n t i n g it (his emphasis)?" Again she raved o n a b o u t h o w enlightening the w o r k ­ s h o p s h a d been. She was pleased that the state of Virginia h a d given a " $ 5 , 0 0 0 or $ 1 0 , 0 0 0 grant to fund the Sadkers' w o r k s h o p " a n d assured u s the m o n e y was "absolutely m i n i m a l . " After the p r o g r a m aired, m y p h o n e rang: it was a colleague of t h e Sadkers from American University. He told m e that Ms. Steindam w a s not the objective outsider she a p p e a r e d to b e o n the PBS s h o w . She h a d been a s t u d e n t of the Sadkers a n d h a d written her doctoral thesis w i t h them. She h a d even c o a u t h o r e d a n article with t h e m called " G e n d e r Equity a n d Educational R e f o r m . " I could n o t believe that PBS k n e w a b o u t this relationship w i t h o u t telling m e before the s h o w , so I called Ira Glass. H e k n e w that Ms. Steindam was a c q u a i n t e d with the Sadkers' training m e t h o d s b u t h a d n o idea she w a s their colleague a n d coauthor. The professor from American University was skeptical of the Sadkers' data-gathering techniques in general. "They, or their graduate s t u d e n t s , sit in classrooms a n d tally u p h o w m a n y times teachers praise, criticize, etc., boys versus girls. T h e possibilities for subjective interpretation are endless." He also told m e a b o u t his e n c o u n t e r w i t h o n e of the Sadkers' s t u d e n t s , w h o was doing research for h e r o w n thesis: 47

A doctoral s t u d e n t of theirs used o n e of m y classes in her research. At the e n d of h e r first visit, she said, "You are screwing u p m y data." W h e n I s h o w e d surprise, she said, "Yes, you're o n e of the control classes a n d you're s u p p o s e d to s h o w bias b u t you don't." She c a m e to that class two m o r e times, a n d each time she discovered m o r e bias. In fact, the last time she observed, the n u m b e r s looked so lopsided a n d n o t at all reflective of the way the class went, I asked

170

W H O

STOLE

FEMINISM?

m y g r a d u a t e assistant to take a sample poll of s t u d e n t s to see h o w their recollections j i b e d w i t h the n u m b e r s she wrote d o w n . In every case, the male s t u d e n t s recalled being called on far fewer times, a n d the female s t u d e n t s several m o r e times than her n u m b e r s indicated. I a m distrustful of s u c h research. S o m e t h i n g else h a p p e n e d d u r i n g the PBS s h o w that increased m y o w n d o u b t a b o u t s u c h research m e t h o d s . Halfway into the p r o g r a m , a w o m a n n a m e d Lisa called in. She identified herself as a feminist a n d proceeded to a d m o n i s h Ira Glass, the very polite a n d respectful PBS moderator, for i n t e r r u p t i n g Myra a n d m e "seven times" a n d David Sadker, the lone male, "not at all." Glass w a s clearly s h a k e n by this attack. David Sadker was h a p p y to have this neat confirmation of his thesis. "Lisa is right," he said, a n d p r o c e e d e d to give a brief lecture o n h o w m a n y m o r e times w o m e n are i n t e r r u p t e d t h a n m e n . I w e n t b a c k to the PBS tape w i t h a stopwatch. U p to the point Lisa called, David Sadker h a d s p o k e n for a total of two minutes, a n d Ms. Sadker a n d I h a d s p o k e n for six m i n u t e s each. True, w e were interrupted m o r e — b u t w e h a d talked three times as m u c h ! Glass interrupted Mr. Sadker a p p r o x i m a t e l y o n c e every fifty-two seconds. H e interrupted Ms. Sadker a n d m e o n c e every ninety-three seconds. In effect, Mr. Glass h a d i n t e r r u p t e d his male guest nearly twice as often as h e h a d interrupted his female guests. F u r t h e r m o r e , w h e r e a s a n interrupted Mr. Sadker lapsed into silence, Ms. Sadker a n d I b o t h insisted o n finishing w h a t w e were saying. O n April 7, 1 9 9 2 , NBC N e w s ' "Dateline" with J a n e Pauley a n d Stone Phillips h a d Myra a n d David Sadker o n as guests. Ms. Pauley began: T h e [Wellesley] r e p o r t cites data compiled over the last decade by a h u s b a n d - a n d - w i f e research team. Drs. David a n d Myra Sadker of American University are the nation's leading experts on gender bias. W e hired t h e m as consultants to observe Miss Lowe [a teacher] a n d analyze o u r videotape for evidence of bias against girls. 48

A "Dateline" crew h a d filmed Ms. Lowe's elementary school class for several h o u r s . A few m i n u t e s of this were s h o w n . In one scene children w e r e w o r k i n g quietly at their desks, a n d Ms. Lowe was m o v i n g from one b o y to t h e n e x t m a k i n g brief, thoughtful c o m m e n t s . She then w e n t on to a girl b u t said n o t h i n g of c o n s e q u e n c e to her. In a voice-over, Ms. Pauley excitedly p o i n t e d out, "Remember, she k n o w s o u r cameras are there, a n d

THE

WELLESLEY

REPORT

171

she k n o w s w e are looking for g e n d e r bias." Pauley was visibly s t u n n e d by w h a t she regarded as Ms. Lowe's sexist behavior: "So boys are getting the message that w h a t they have to say is i m p o r t a n t , a n d girls begin to conclude j u s t the opposite, with serious consequences." I called Ms. Lowe. She agrees w i t h the goals of the Sadkers' research a n d believes teachers m a y exhibit u n c o n s c i o u s bias. She herself took p a r t in a teachers' presentation in s u p p o r t of the G e n d e r Equity in Education Act. Nevertheless, s h e felt that the "Dateline" p r o g r a m was a s h a m . "That class was boy-heavy," she said. "Of course I called o n m o r e boys. A g o o d d o c u m e n t a r y s h o u l d tell you the p r o p o r t i o n of boys to girls in the class. There were four or five m o r e boys t h a n girls." Moreover, she p o i n t e d out, the "Dateline" crew h a d filmed her for eight to ten h o u r s , b u t only a few m i n u t e s were s h o w n . Of course it was possible to find in all that footage s o m e small s e q u e n c e that a p p e a r e d to s h o w bias. "By that m e t h o d , " Ms. Lowe observed derisively, "they could d o c u m e n t m o s t anything." (The segment, by the way, aired j u s t after NBC h a d w e a t h e r e d the embarrass­ m e n t of airing a " d o c u m e n t a r y " o n the dangers of GM trucks w h o s e gas tanks were located o n the side. It t u r n e d o u t that an NBC crew h a d fitted a truck w i t h an explosive a n d t h e n graphically " s h o w e d " h o w i m p a c t caused the fuel t a n k to explode w i t h o u t explaining h o w the footage h a d been rigged.) Ms. Lowe told m e that her fifth-graders w e r e incensed by w h a t "Date­ line" h a d m a d e of the long h o u r s of filming. T h e kids k n e w there w e r e m o r e boys t h a n girls in the class. W h y wasn't that m a d e clear, they w o n d e r e d . Their general feeling was that "Dateline" w a s stretching to drive h o m e a message. I asked Ms. Lowe h o w the "Dateline" staff a n d Ms. Pauley h a d h a p p e n e d to choose h e r school to film. Ms. Lowe informed m e that the contact was m a d e t h r o u g h Dr. Sharon Steindam, o n e of h e r school administrators w h o h a d w o r k e d w i t h the Sadkers. "Dateline" did interview o n e skeptic. Ms. Pauley asked Diane Ravitch, then assistant secretary of education u n d e r Lamar Alexander, w h a t she t h o u g h t of the Wellesley Report. Ms. Ravitch told Pauley all a b o u t the overwhelming data that s h o w boys to b e in serious trouble. She s p o k e a b o u t d r o p o u t rates, the grading gap that favors girls, the far greater n u m b e r of boys with learning disabilities. According to Ravitch, Pauley s h o w e d n o interest in the boys' plight b u t k e p t after her to concede that girls were suffering from g e n d e r bias. W h e n it b e c a m e clear that Ravitch was n o t going to capitulate, Pauley asked her, "Well, w h a t if p e o p l e believe there is bias?" Ms. Ravitch, b y t h e n nettled, retorted, "If p e o p l e believe this is a serious p r o b l e m , they s h o u l d s e n d their daughters to single-sex

172

W H O

STOLE

FEMINISM?

schools." All that aired of her c o m m e n t s was that isolated exasperated remark. N o fewer t h a n fifty m e m b e r s of Congress sent a letter to Lamar Alex­ ander, professing themselves outraged by Ravitch's c o m m e n t , a n d they cited the AAUW/Wellesley r e p o r t " H o w Schools Shortchange Girls" to contradict her. They d e m a n d e d that the secretary take serious steps w i t h regard to Ms. Ravitch. T h e letter also p u t the secretary on notice: if h e o p p o s e d the G e n d e r Equity in Education Act, there w o u l d be fire­ works. Stone Phillips m a y well have been right w h e n he said on a recent "Dateline" u p d a t e o n the G e n d e r Equity in Education Act, "With w o m e n playing a bigger role t h a n ever in W a s h i n g t o n . . . this m a y be one bill i m m u n e from congressional g r i d l o c k . " But the w o m e n w h o are playing a bigger role are n o t necessarily m e m b e r s of Congress; they are m o r e likely to be the d e t e r m i n e d w o m e n of organizations like the AAUW a n d the Wellesley College Center for Research on W o m e n . J a n e Pauley w a s clearly m o v e d by the Wellesley Report. Her h u s b a n d , Garry T r u d e a u , was too; h e used his "Doonesbury" c o l u m n to popularize its findings. It is u n d e r s t a n d a b l e that Ms. Pauley a n d Mr. Trudeau should a s s u m e that the Wellesley scholars a n d the AAUW h a d been fair a n d c o m p e t e n t in their research. To Pauley a n d Trudeau, as to most other intelligent a n d informed Americans, Wellesley a n d the AAUW are syn­ o n y m o u s w i t h professional integrity a n d scholarly authority. O n the o t h e r h a n d , the American public relies on Ms. Pauley's reputa­ tion as a n investigative reporter to be a c c u r a t e — e v e n on issues that passionately c o n c e r n her. Ironically, the title of her gender bias d o c u m e n ­ tary w a s "Failing at Fairness." I have h a d yet a n o t h e r b r u s h with the Sadkers. O n the afternoon of M o n d a y , J a n u a r y 10, 1 9 9 4 , 1 received a call from a p r o d u c e r of the O p r a h Winfrey s h o w . T h e Sadkers w o u l d b e appearing on the s h o w on Thursday m o r n i n g to discuss their findings o n h o w girls are being shortchanged in the nation's schools. I w a s invited to j o i n t h e m on the s h o w to provide a contrasting p o i n t of view. Despite the short notice, I was delighted. It is so rare that the gender-bias experts are confronted with any k i n d of criticism. I accepted a n d w e p l a n n e d that I w o u l d leave for Chicago W e d n e s d a y m o r n i n g to avoid transportation p r o b l e m s from a predicted storm. But o n late T u e s d a y afternoon, the p r o d u c e r called to tell m e that there h a d b e e n a n extraordinary development. The Sadkers were refusing to a p p e a r w i t h m e . T h e p r o d u c e r was apologetic, b u t he was in a bind. T h e s h o w w o u l d go on w i t h o u t m y c r i t i c i s m — w h i c h is just w h a t the Sadkers w a n t e d . I told the p r o d u c e r that this was a pattern with gender49

50

THE

WELLESLEY

REPORT

173

bias advocates; they m e e t only in like-minded g r o u p s a n d speak only in uncontested venues. They d o n o t feel obligated to deal with objections to their views a n d doctrines. W h a t is extraordinary is that, so far, they have been able to get their way.

The Sadkers are j u s t two of several a u t h o r s of the Wellesley Report. Peggy M c i n t o s h is another. She is listed as a "core team m e m b e r " w h o helped to d o the research a n d to write the report a n d w h o "discussed, reviewed, a n d d e b a t e d every aspect of the project for its entire twelve­ m o n t h life." In addition to the charge that schools u n d e r m i n e girls' selfesteem by "silencing" t h e m in o u r nation's classrooms, the r e p o r t claims that girls "do n o t see themselves" reflected in the curriculum. T h a t is Ms. Mcintosh's p e t charge. Blandly accepting Ms. Mcintosh's q u i r k y distinction b e t w e e n (femi­ nine) "lateral" a n d (masculine) "vertical" thinking, the report urges that girls' special ways of t h i n k i n g a n d k n o w i n g b e recognized a n d e m p h a ­ sized in the nation's elementary schools. Likewise, the report refers to Mcintosh's five interactive phases of curricular d e v e l o p m e n t as if these were recognized scientific findings: 51

Phases I, II, a n d III have a vertical axis of "either/or thinking" that views w i n n i n g a n d losing as the only alternatives. An i m p o r t a n t conceptual a n d emotional shift occurs in Phase IV. . . . In Phase IV w e see, for the first time, the cyclical n a t u r e of daily life, the m a k i n g a n d m e n d i n g of the social fabric. . . . Phase IV features lateral a n d plural thinking, sees "vertical" t h i n k i n g as simply o n e version of thinking, a n d encourages all s t u d e n t s to " m a k e textbooks of their lives." 52

T h e report does n o t explain the m e a n i n g of "vertical" a n d "lateral" thinking or w h a t it m i g h t m e a n to " m a k e textbooks of [one's life]," b u t it repeats as gospel Mcintosh's assessment of the traditional c u r r i c u l u m as insidious: "Many school subjects, as presently taught, fall w i t h i n the gen­ eral descriptions of Phases I a n d II. In the u p p e r grades especially, the curriculum n a r r o w s a n d definitions of k n o w i n g take o n gender-specific a n d culture-specific qualities associated w i t h Anglo-European male val­ u e s . " Such passages provide insight into w h a t the g e n d e r feminists m e a n by gender i n e q u i t y — a definition far from w h a t m o s t p e o p l e u n d e r s t a n d it to m e a n . As an example of a p h a s e o n e Anglo-European male activity, the report cites civics classes that focus o n controversy. It suggests that 53

174

W H O

STOLE

FEMINISM?

girls w o u l d b e m o r e comfortable in classes that are m o r e personal a n d less c o n t e n t i o u s — t h a t a d d r e s s w h a t the report calls "the daily texture of life." To get at the p h i l o s o p h y u n d e r l y i n g the Wellesley Report, it is instruc­ tive to r e t u r n to M c i n t o s h ' s fall 1990 w o r k s h o p for grade school teachers in Brookline, Massachusetts, w h e n she c o n d e m n e d "young white males" as a g r o u p , calling t h e m " d a n g e r o u s to themselves a n d to the rest of u s . " To give h e r a u d i e n c e a n idea of the h a r m inflicted by the vertical a p ­ p r o a c h , s h e told of a y o u n g girl w h o h a d trouble adding a c o l u m n of n u m b e r s : 1 + 3 + 5. T h e p r o b l e m , as Mcintosh saw it, was that the w o r k s h e e t r e q u i r e d h e r to t h i n k vertically, thereby u n d e r m i n i n g her selfesteem a n d causing h e r to b e c o m e discouraged. She urged the Brookline teachers to find ways to " p u t . . . [students] off the right-wrong axis, the win-lose axis." W h a t that m i g h t m e a n for learning s u m s , Mcintosh never explicitly said. O n e exasperated p a r e n t w h o saw the video, Robert Costrell, a p r o ­ fessor of e c o n o m i c s at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst wrote a piece in the local n e w s p a p e r critical of Ms. Mcintosh's educational philosophy: 5 4

Since t h e child c o u l d n o t a d d 1 + 3 + 5, w e n e e d to k n o w if she could a d d 1 + 3 . If not, t h e n she w o u l d only b e further demoral­ ized by m o r e t h r e e - t e r m exercises, n o matter h o w non-hierarchical. If s h e can a d d 1 + 3 , t h e n the child is ready for a breakthrough, since she c o u l d t h e n a d d 4 + 5 a n d finish the p r o b l e m . The child w o u l d n o t only have found the answer, b u t w o u l d have the basis for later s t u d y of the associative law in algebra, not to m e n t i o n the self-esteem that goes along w i t h it. But of course, this is "vertical thinking." 55

Professor Costrell h e r e t o u c h e s o n a fundamental inconsistency within the Wellesley Report. O n the o n e h a n d , it tells us that girls are left b e h i n d in m a t h , science, a n d engineering a n d that w e m u s t take steps to help t h e m catch u p . T h o u g h the r e p o r t exaggerates the significance of the disparity b e t w e e n t h e m a t h skills of boys a n d those of girls, we may all a c k n o w l e d g e the n e e d to a d d r e s s a n y deficiency girls may have in m a t h a n d science. But the r e p o r t goes o n to denigrate vertical approaches to subjects like m a t h a n d science, despite the fact that they d e p e n d on exact t h i n k i n g a n d calculation. It's n o t that the a u t h o r s of the report could not m a k e u p their m i n d s ; in fact, they seem to have little use for exact t h i n k i n g a n d real science. But the reporters a n d politicians n e e d e d s o m e

THE

WELLESLEY

REPORT

175

evidence that girls are being shortchanged. T h e discrepancy in science a n d m a t h , t h o u g h small, was useful for that p u r p o s e . So the report cites the boys' advantage in these areas, ignoring for the m o m e n t its o w n prejudice against those subjects. Debating clubs, w h i c h take for granted a n "adversarial, win/lose ori­ entation," are cited in the report as a n o t h e r example of a male a p p r o a c h to knowledge. Yet m o s t analytical disciplines, from p h i l o s o p h y to history to law, require skill in a r g u m e n t . As an equity feminist w h o w a n t s girls to excel, I see debating clubs as an i m p o r t a n t tool for teaching students to b e articulate, cogent, persuasive, a n d forceful. True, adversar­ ial competitiveness is a part of every debate, a n d so favoring skill in debate m a y b e m a d e to seem like favoring aggression. So what? Adversarial rhetoric is a tradition of the greatest schools, from the dialectical practices of the Greek academies a n d the ancient yeshivas of Babylonia to the great debating clubs of Oxford a n d Cambridge. W h a t w o u l d o u r m o d e r n sys­ tem of democratic parliaments b e w i t h o u t debates? More t h a n ever w o m e n are called u p o n to use debating skills in their professions a n d in politics. To talk a b o u t "kill or b e killed" practices a n d to suggest that w o m e n are "above" that sort of thing is to relegate t h e m to ineffective­ ness. Mcintosh's theories are depressingly reminiscent of the canard that w o m e n are innately irrational a n d too delicate for the r o u g h - a n d - t u m b l e world w e associate w i t h effective intellectual exchange a n d clear thinking. H o w far, after all, is M c i n t o s h from the eighteenth-century G e r m a n p h i ­ losopher J o h a n n Gottlieb Fichte, w h o h a d his o w n views a b o u t male a n d female "ways of k n o w i n g . " "Man reduces all that is in a n d for h i m to clear conceptions, a n d discovers it only t h r o u g h reasoning. . . . W o m a n , o n the other h a n d , has a natural s e n t i m e n t of w h a t is good, true, a n d p r o p e r . " Not surprisingly, Fichte offers this left-handed c o m p l i m e n t to w o m e n a n d their w o n d r o u s "sentiments" in the course of arguing against granting t h e m the right to v o t e . The w o m e n at the AAUW a n d the Wellesley College Center for Re­ search o n W o m e n c a n n o t have it b o t h ways: if you w a n t girls to succeed in m a t h , science, a n d engineering, t h e n you have to teach t h e m , along with boys, to b e analytical thinkers, to value the very things Ms. M c i n t o s h was w a r n i n g the Brookline teachers against—"exact thinking, decisive­ ness, mastery of s o m e t h i n g — r i g h t a n d w r o n g answers, w i n lest you lose." As J o h n Leo of U.S. News & World Report—one of the few journalists w h o took the trouble to read past the first few pages of the r e p o r t — p u t it, "Mcintosh w a n t s to p r o m o t e 'lateral thinking' in the curriculum, the aim of w h i c h is n o t to w i n or excel b u t 'to b e in a decent relationship to 56

176

W H O

STOLE

FEMINISM?

the invisible e l e m e n t s of the universe.' Consider that an alarm bell. This report n e e d s a full vertical a n a l y s i s . " Colleges use b o t h the Scholastic Aptitude Test a n d the high school records in selecting s t u d e n t s for admission. O n average, girls have better grades b u t d o slightly w o r s e o n the SAT. T h e m e a n m a t h scores in 1992 w e r e 4 9 9 for boys, a n d 4 5 6 for girls; in English, 4 2 8 for boys, a n d 4 1 9 for g i r l s . T h e SAT is s u p p o s e d to predict h o w well a s t u d e n t will do in college; however, o n c e they get to college, it is the girls w h o get the better grades. Ever o n t h e alert for h o w schools are "shortchanging" girls, the Welles­ ley Report takes these facts as clear evidence that the SAT is biased in favor of boys. It is possible that the test score differentials are indicative of bias a n d that the test s h o u l d b e altered to minimize or eliminate such bias. But w e c a n n o t accept that conclusion w i t h o u t better (and m o r e impartial) research. Scores b y themselves d o n o t necessarily s h o w bias. T h e r e are m a n y other factors to consider. More girls t h a n boys take the SAT (girls, 5 2 percent; boys, 4 8 percent); moreover, a c c o r d i n g to the 1 9 9 2 College Board Profile of the SAT Test Takers, m o r e females from "at risk" categories take the test than males. Specifically, m o r e girls from l o w e r - i n c o m e h o m e s or with parents w h o never a t t e n d e d college are likely to a t t e m p t the SAT exam than are boys from the s a m e b a c k g r o u n d . "These characteristics are associated with lower t h a n average SAT scores," says the College B o a r d . M e n a n d w o m e n take different k i n d s of courses in college; m o r e males enroll in m a t h a n d science, m o r e females in the humanities. The advent of radical g r a d e inflation in t h e h u m a n i t i e s , a n d comparatively little in the sciences, m i g h t explain w h y , despite lower SAT scores, w o m e n stu­ d e n t s n e t higher g r a d e p o i n t averages. T h e Wellesley researchers were aware of this possibility, b u t they insist that even w h e n course difficulty is taken into a c c o u n t , the SAT test still t u r n s out to be biased against girls: 57

58

59

T h e u n d e r p r e d i c t i o n of w o m e n ' s college grades does not result from w o m e n taking easier courses. In m a t h courses at all levels, grades of females a n d males are very similar, b u t male SAT-Math scores are higher t h a n female scores. Even w h e n grades are weighted to allow for differences in the difficulty of first-year courses taken by w o m e n a n d m e n , the u n d e r p r e d i c t i o n of w o m e n ' s grades is reduced b u t not eliminated. 60

If that w e r e right, w e w o u l d certainly b e inclined to say that the test is s k e w e d in favor of the boys. O n this p o i n t the report claims s u p p o r t from

THE

WELLESLEY

REPORT

177

an article entitled " G e n d e r Bias in the Prediction of College Course Per­ formance" in a 1 9 8 8 issue of the Journal of Educational Measurement. But, as journalist Daniel Seligman reported in a March 1992 issue of Fortune, that article is a w e a k reed i n d e e d . Its a u t h o r s , Robert M c C o r m a c k a n d Mary McLeod of San Diego State University, take pains to say that once the difficulty of the courses is considered, there is no evidence of g e n d e r bias. In fact, M c C o r m a c k a n d McLeod found, "Curiously, in those few courses in w h i c h a g e n d e r bias was found, it m o s t often involved overpredicting for w o m e n in a course in w h i c h m e n earned a higher average grade." Seligman's observations p r o v o k e d a letter to Fortune from Susan Bailey a n d Patricia C a m p b e l l — t w o of the report's authors. They did n o t defend, explain, or apologize for their reliance o n the McCormack/McLeod article; instead they claimed that other studies d o s u p p o r t the finding of bias. F u r t h e r m o r e , they asserted, "It is h a r d to take seriously [Seligman's] cri­ tique . . . w h e n girls are referred to as ' d o l l s . ' . . . T h e Report was written to d o c u m e n t g e n d e r bias a n d to suggest positive steps to c o m b a t it. Reference to guys [and] dolls . . . does little to h e l p o u r schools or o u r s t u d e n t s . " Mr. Seligman's choice of w o r d s m a y have b e e n frivolous, b u t his p o i n t was not. A n d w h a t are w e to t h i n k w h e n those w h o claim to b e helping o u r schools refuse to answer a criticism that presents a simple finding of error? Criticism by the education writer Rita Kramer in Commentary p r o v o k e d another angry letter from Sharon Schuster, the president of the AAUW. Ms. Schuster argued that girls' w e a k e r performance was caused by the biased content of the tests: 61

62

63

Research studies reviewed in the report also found substantial gen­ der bias in standardized tests. O n e analysis of tests found twice as m a n y references to m e n as to w o m e n , a n d m o r e pictures of a n d references to boys than girls. A later s t u d y of the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) found references to 4 2 m e n a n d only three w o m e n in the r e a d i n g - c o m p r e h e n s i o n passages used in the four 1 9 8 4 - 8 5 exams. Of the 4 2 m e n , 3 4 w e r e famous a n d their w o r k was cited; o n e of the three w o m e n w a s famous (Margaret Mead) a n d her w o r k was criticized. 64

Ms. Schuster seems to imply that if the SAT a n d other standardized tests h a d m o r e w o r d p r o b l e m s that girls could relate t o — s a y , a b o u t famous w o m e n or p e r h a p s a b o u t cooking, sewing, quilting, or relation­ s h i p s — t h e n girls' scores w o u l d go u p .

178

W H O

STOLE

FEMINISM?

But surely Ms. Schuster read the report w h i c h rejects this argument, n o t i n g that "references to male or female n a m e s , p r o n o u n s , possessions, or o c c u p a t i o n s in t h e place of neutral language had no demonstrable effect at all o n the e x a m i n e e performance o n mathematics w o r d problems [my e m p h a s i s ) . " Boys still averaged better t h a n girls on SAT p r o b l e m solving, "even w h e n t h e p r o b l e m related to food a n d cooking." T h e content of examples h a d n o effect o n performance o n e way or the other. T h e r e p o r t d i d find that girls are better t h a n boys in computation, a rather small consolation in a n era of h a n d - h e l d calculators. Not to be discouraged, t h e AAUW-Wellesley team seized the o p p o r t u n i t y to rec­ o m m e n d that b o y s ' a n d girls' test results b e equalized by testing m o r e o n c o m p u t a t i o n a n d less o n p r o b l e m solving. Of course, this sets precisely the w r o n g e m p h a s i s , since it is the higher-order skills—problem solving — t h a t are m o s t i m p o r t a n t , a n d in w h i c h o u r children are weakest. Inter­ national e x a m s d o c u m e n t that o u r schoolchildren c o m e closer to our c o m p e t i t o r s in arithmetic ( t h o u g h even here they still lag behind) than they d o in m o r e challenging areas. So, o n c e again w e find that the gender feminists' ideological a n d par­ tisan t r e a t m e n t of a p r o b l e m — w h i c h is in principle amenable to a n objective a n d n o n p a r t i s a n s o l u t i o n — e n d s u p confusing the issues, creat­ ing a c r i m o n y , a n d h e l p i n g n o b o d y . T h e question of test fairness is impor­ tant, too i m p o r t a n t to b e left to the mercies of advocacy research. W h o is shortchanging whom?

T h e Wellesley Report is correct w h e n it p o i n t s out that American girls are trailing boys in m a t h a n d science. T h e gap is small b u t real, a n d the report is right to suggest that schools m u s t m a k e every effort to "dispel m y t h s a b o u t m a t h a n d science as 'inappropriate' fields for w o m e n . " Unfortunately, that s o u n d suggestion is accompanied by m o r e than twenty questionable a n d distressing r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s that would, if acted u p o n , create a n i g h t m a r i s h "gender equity" bureaucracy with plenty of time a n d m o n e y o n its h a n d s — j u s t the sort of r e c o m m e n d a t i o n anyone w h o cares a b o u t the well-being of American schools should fear a n d loathe: "The U.S D e p a r t m e n t of Education's Office of Educational Re­ search a n d I m p r o v e m e n t (OERI) s h o u l d establish an advisory panel of g e n d e r equity experts to w o r k w i t h OERI to develop a research a n d dissemination a g e n d a to foster gender-equitable education in the nation's classrooms." W h o w o u l d b e training the g e n d e r experts? W h o w o u l d m o n i t o r the nation's schools o n h o w well they conform to the ideals of a correct sexual 65

66

THE

WELLESLEY

REPORT

179

politics? More generally, w h o w o u l d benefit m o s t from the millions being requested for the G e n d e r Equity in Education Act? W o u l d it n o t b e those w h o insist that g e n d e r equity is o u r foremost educational p r o b l e m ? O u r system cannot h a n d l e m u c h m o r e pressure from these m u d d l e d b u t de­ termined w o m e n w i t h their multistage theories a n d their m e t a p h o r s a b o u t w i n d o w s , mirrors, a n d voices, their w o r k s h o p s , a n d above all their con­ stant alarms a b o u t the state of male-female relations in American society. W h i c h leads u s b a c k to w h a t is m o s t w r o n g h e a d e d a b o u t the Wellesley Report: its exploitation of America's very real p r o b l e m as a nation educa­ tionally at risk. Despite its suggestion that solving the " p r o b l e m of g e n d e r equity" will s o m e h o w help us to bridge the gap b e t w e e n American chil­ d r e n a n d the educationally superior children of other c o u n t r i e s — w h a t the education researcher Harold Stevenson aptly calls the "learning g a p " — t h e report never says h o w . T h e reason for the omission is obvious: the authors have n o plausible solution to offer. In 1990 the J a p a n e s e translated into English the mathematical section of their college entrance exam. American mathematicians were startled by w h a t they saw. Professor Richard Askey, a mathematician at the Univer­ sity of Wisconsin, s p o k e for m a n y American scientists a n d m a t h e m a t i ­ cians w h e n h e said, "The level at w h i c h [Japanese] s t u d e n t s perform o n these [exams] is j u s t i n c r e d i b l e . " Science magazine recently p r i n t e d a sample question from the entrance examination to Tokyo University. To solve it w o u l d require a lot of "vertical thinking": "Given a regular p y r a m i d , there is a ball w i t h its center on the b o t t o m of the p y r a m i d a n d tangent to all edges. (A regular p y r a m i d has four isosceles triangles adjoined to a square base.) If each edge of the pyramid base is of length a, find the height of the p y r a m i d a n d the v o l u m e of the portion it has in c o m m o n w i t h the b a l l . " The Science editors p o i n t o u t that this question is being asked n o t of future m a t h a n d science majors b u t of Japanese high school s t u d e n t s w h o were p l a n n i n g to major in the humanities. They noted: " W h e n U.S. m a t h majors m i g h t trail even lit s t u d e n t s in J a p a n , there's a lot of catching u p to d o . " American educators sometimes explain away the discrepancies by pointing out that only the best s t u d e n t s in J a p a n take the test. In 1 9 8 7 , for example, 3 1 p e r c e n t of American college-age s t u d e n t s took the SAT; in J a p a n the figure was 14 p e r c e n t for the J a p a n e s e equivalent of the SAT. But even o u r very best s t u d e n t s h a d a h a r d time m a t c h i n g the average score of the J a p a n e s e s t u d e n t s . Studies by Professor Jerry Becker, of Southern Illinois University, a n d by Floyd Mattheis, of East Carolina University, tell the same story. Becker reports that the p r o b l e m is n o t 67

68

6 9

70

180

W H O

STOLE

FEMINISM?

simply that J a p a n e s e s t u d e n t s as a w h o l e outperform o u r students b u t that "average s t u d e n t s in J a p a n s h o w greater achievement than the top five p e r c e n t of U.S. s t u d e n t s " (his e m p h a s i s ) . Mattheis c o m p a r e d j u n i o r high s t u d e n t s in J a p a n a n d N o r t h Carolina. Reporting o n his study, Sci­ ence magazine says, "It s h o w s J a p a n e s e s t u d e n t s out front at every age g r o u p in a test that m e a s u r e s six logical thinking o p e r a t i o n s . " Professor Stevenson has d o n e s o m e of the most t h o r o u g h comparative studies. H e found a big difference b e t w e e n the average American score a n d the average for J a p a n e s e a n d Taiwanese students. (Only 14.5 percent of Taiwanese a n d 8 p e r c e n t of J a p a n e s e eleventh-graders h a d scores below the American average.) A m o n g fifth-graders only 4 . 1 percent of Tai­ wanese children a n d 10.3 p e r c e n t of Japanese children score as low or lower t h a n the A m e r i c a n a v e r a g e . Stevenson points out that w e cannot attribute the disparity to "differential sampling." He studied first-, fifth-, a n d eleventh-graders in J a p a n , Taiwan, a n d the United States, in all three of w h i c h e n r o l l m e n t in first a n d fifth grades is close to 100 percent. If vocational schools are i n c l u d e d in the figures for high school, the repre­ sentation of adolescents is also the same. 71

72

73

W h a t of the g e n d e r g a p b e t w e e n American boys a n d girls in math? As n o t e d earlier, the Educational Testing Service (in its International Assess­ m e n t of Mathematics a n d Science) found that although thirteen-year-old American girls lag a p o i n t b e h i n d the boys, that gap is insignificant c o m p a r e d to the o n e b e t w e e n American children a n d foreign children. Recall that the disparity b e t w e e n o u r boys a n d Taiwanese a n d Korean girls w a s 16 p o i n t s . S o m e theorists speculate that Asian children d o better at m a t h because their languages are so c o m p l e x a n d abstract, providing better preparation in the cognitive skills r e q u i r e d for m a t h a n d science. That does not help to explain w h y American children lag b e h i n d European a n d Canadian s t u d e n t s too. Girls in French-speaking Q u e b e c outperform our boys by 12 p o i n t s o n the IAEP m a t h test. In fact, American boys lag b e h i n d girls in s u c h countries as Ireland, Italy, a n d H u n g a r y . In science the results, a l t h o u g h n o t quite so dismaying, c o n t i n u e the pattern: American boys trail significantly b e h i n d the foreign girls. T h e p r e s i d e n t of the Educational Testing Service, Gregory Anrig, has cited three factors that c o n t r i b u t e to Asians' a n d Europeans' higher per­ formance: rigorous c o n t e n t in the curriculum, high expectations from p a r e n t s a n d teachers, a n d positive cultural attitudes toward learning. Absurdly, cynically, or foolishly, the AAUW a n d the Wellesley experts are focusing o n the o n e area in w h i c h American s t u d e n t s surpass students 74

75

76

THE

WELLESLEY

REPORT

181

in other countries, a n d w h e r e they n e e d the least a m o u n t of help—selfesteem! Reacting to the alarms of the AAUW a n d the Wellesley College Center for Research on W o m e n , Congress is n o w likely to pass the G e n d e r Equity in Education Act. Unfortunately, a legislative emphasis o n gender gaps is an unhelpful diversion. Dr. Stevenson's findings, backed by serious stud­ ies from m a n y other quarters, highlight the real p r o b l e m s of a nation that is educationally at risk. T h e r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s that Stevenson a n d other experts o n the "learning g a p " p r o b l e m are m a k i n g are straightforward, constructive, commonsensical, a n d practicable. Must w e wait for C o n ­ gress to exhaust its need to s h o w that its feminist credentials are in o r d e r before w e see a serious effort to get o u r educational act together?

The AAUW a n d the Wellesley researchers h a d every right to be grati­ fied at their success. It h a d all b e e n so easy. T h e media h a d been cooper­ ative a n d uncritical. T h e strategy of "do a study, declare a crisis, get politicians w o r k e d u p " was p r o v i n g to b e astonishingly effective. The Wellesley Center took the lead for the next study, focusing o n the sexual harassment of girls by boys in the grade schools. N a n Stein was the obvious choice to carry out s u c h a study. A "project director" at the Wellesley College Center for Research o n W o m e n , she h a d b e e n p r o m i ­ n e n t o n the w o r k s h o p circuit for m a n y years. W o r k i n g closely w i t h the National Organization of W o m e n , Dr. Stein designed a questionnaire a n d placed it in the September 1992 issue of Seventeen. T h e editors at Seven­ teen p r e c e d e d the questionnaire by an article that told a disturbing story about a Minnesota girl n a m e d Katy Lyle w h o was t o r m e n t e d a n d humili­ ated on a daily basis by her peers a n d eventually took legal action. Certain passages from the story w e r e highlighted in large boldface letters: "It's probably h a p p e n e d to y o u " a n d "You d o n ' t have to p u t u p with i t — i n fact it's illegal. A n d y o u r school is responsible for s t o p p i n g it." T h e article e n d e d w i t h a w o r d from Dr. Stein a b o u t the i m p o r t a n c e of creating m o r e caring a n d j u s t schools—"girls included." T h e n came the half-page tearoff questionnaire entitled "What's H a p p e n i n g to You?" A m o n g the thir­ teen questions asked of the Seventeen readers were these: • Did a n y o n e d o a n y of the following to y o u when you didn't want them to in the last school year? (a) touch, p i n c h , or grab you (b) lean over y o u or c o m e r y o u

182

W H O

STOLE

FEMINISM?

(c) give you sexual notes o r pictures (d) m a k e suggestive o r sexual gestures, looks, c o m m e n t s , or jokes (e) p r e s s u r e y o u to d o s o m e t h i n g sexual (0 force you to d o s o m e t h i n g sexual • If you've b e e n sexually harassed at school, h o w d i d it m a k e y o u feel? Forty-two h u n d r e d of the magazine's 1.9 million subscribers returned the questionnaire, a 0.2 p e r c e n t r e s p o n s e . Nearly all t h e respondents r e p o r t e d they h a d b e e n harassed as defined b y t h e questionnaire. Specif­ ically, t h e data s h o w e d that 8 9 p e r c e n t of t h e r e s p o n d e n t s h a d received suggestive gestures, looks, c o m m e n t s , o r jokes; 8 3 percent h a d been t o u c h e d , p i n c h e d , o r grabbed; 4 7 percent were leaned over or cornered; 2 8 p e r c e n t received sexual notes o r pictures; 2 7 percent were pressured to d o s o m e t h i n g sexual; a n d 10 p e r c e n t were forced to d o something sexual. Ms. Stein, w h o w a s m u c h m o v e d b y t h e responses, began to write a b o u t t h e m even before she c o m p l e t e d t h e study. In the N o v e m b e r 1992 issue of Education Week, s h e wrote: 77

Their letters arrive b y t h e h u n d r e d s daily, screaming to b e read: " O P E N , " " U R G E N T , " "PLEASE READ" are s c r i b b l e d o n t h e

envelopes.

Sometimes t h e writers give their n a m e s a n d addresses, sometimes they don't. . . . Inside t h e envelopes are chilling stories, handwritten o n lined n o t e b o o k paper. . . . All beg for attention, for answers, a n d above all, for s o m e type of j u s t i c e . 78

"To t h o u s a n d s of adolescent girls," s h e concludes, "school m a y b e teaching m o r e a b o u t o p p r e s s i o n t h a n freedom; m o r e a b o u t silence than a u t o n o m y . W e n e e d to h e e d their warnings a n d listen to their stories." W h e n Ms. Stein's final r e p o r t came o u t o n March 24, 1 9 9 3 , the results were carried i n n e w s p a p e r s a r o u n d t h e country. T h e reporters cited Ms. Stein's figures in j u s t the way s h e a n d the Wellesley researchers m u s t have h o p e d : Instead of p o i n t i n g o u t that t h e " 9 o u t of 1 0 " of those w h o r e p o r t e d being sexually harassed w e r e girls w h o h a d taken t h e trouble to a n s w e r a magazine s u r v e y — a n d w h o constituted n o m o r e than t w o t e n t h s of 1 p e r c e n t of t h e magazine's r e a d e r s h i p — t h e reporters simply s p o k e of a n e p i d e m i c of harassment. T h e story headline from the Boston Globe w a s typical: "A U.S. survey s h o w s w i d e harassment of girls in school." W h a t Ms. Stein a n d t h e National Organization of W o m e n h a d devised 79

THE

WELLESLEY

REPORT

183

is k n o w n as a self-selecting poll. Responsible pollsters call t h e m S L O P s — self-selected listener o p i n i o n p o l l s — a n d they avoid d o i n g t h e m , or crediting t h e m w h e n other pollsters d o t h e m . A famous example u s e d in introductory statistics classes s h o w s their failings—the 1936 SLOP published b y the Literary Digest that s h o w e d Alf L a n d o n beating FDR b y a landslide. SLOPs c o n t i n u e to be p o p u l a r w i t h s o m e mass-market p u b ­ lications as a form of entertainment, b u t n o serious researcher relies o n them. I asked T o m W . Smith, a director at the National O p i n i o n Research Ceiiter at the University of Chicago, w h e t h e r w e learn anything from a poll of this kind: "No, because there is a crucial fallacy in self-selected research: you get a biased response." He p o i n t e d o u t that the Wellesley harassment survey was in fact the result of n o t o n e b u t two stages of selfselection. T h e s t u d y was confined to readers of Seventeen, w h o s e readers are n o t necessarily representative of the p o p u l a t i o n of adolescent girls; a n d readers w h o r e s p o n d to s u c h a survey t e n d to b e those w h o feel m o s t strongly a b o u t the p r o b l e m . "Even if they h a d forty t h o u s a n d responses it w o u l d still p r o v e very little," said Smith. "You still have to w o n d e r a b o u t the other million a n d a h a l f - p l u s w h o did n o t r e s p o n d . " It is n o t h a r d to see h o w SLOPs could b e used to generate alarm in almost any area of social interaction. Using N a n Stein's m e t h o d o l o g y , w e could easily get p e o p l e w o r k e d u p a b o u t the p r o b l e m of neighborly harassment. W e begin by writing a story describing a case of horrifying neighbor behavior. Assume that w e p r i n t this in a publication like the Reader's Digest. Certain passages w o u l d b e highlighted—"It's p r o b a b l y h a p p e n e d to y o u " a n d "You d o n ' t have to p u t u p w i t h i t — i n fact it's illegal. A n d y o u r city g o v e r n m e n t is responsible for s t o p p i n g it." W e w o u l d t h e n enclose a convenient one-page survey called "What's H a p p e n ­ ing to You?" asking w h e t h e r y o u r n e i g h b o r did any of a list of things to you in the past year—"generally a n n o y you by asking for b u r d e n s o m e favors," "scream at y o u r children," "play l o u d m u s i c or have l o u d parties," "damage y o u r lawn, y o u r car, y o u r garden, y o u r pet, or a n y other p r o p ­ erty," "frighten you by reckless, threatening b e h a v i o r — i n v o l v i n g alcohol, drugs, or g u n s , " "steal from you or physically attack you or any m e m b e r of y o u r family." A n d w e w o u l d e n d by asking, "If you have been tor­ m e n t e d by y o u r neighbor, h o w did it m a k e you feel?" 80

It w o u l d b e expected that the Digest w o u l d receive responses from s o m e small percentage of its readers a n d that the vast majority of this small percentage w o u l d give details of being victimized by a neighbor. T h e "researcher" could then tally u p the results in a scientific-looking b r o ­ c h u r e full of tables, charts, a n d percentages (86 p e r c e n t were accosted b y

184

W H O

STOLE

FEMINISM?

their n e i g h b o r , 6 2 p e r c e n t threatened with physical attack, 4 5 percent physically beaten, 9 1 p e r c e n t subjected to l o u d music, etc.). Interspersed t h r o u g h o u t t h e r e p o r t w o u l d b e disturbing passages from letters by the sufferers. T h o u g h its findings w o u l d surely b e depressing, a SLOP survey on neighborly h a r a s s m e n t w o u l d tell us very little that w e did n o t k n o w . Everyone k n o w s that s o m e neighbors are intolerable. W h a t w e w a n t to k n o w is h o w prevalent n e i g h b o r harassment is, a n d for that we need to k n o w a b o u t the experience of those w h o did n o t return the questionnaire. An SLOP survey is of little value to m o s t social scientists. In using one as her survey i n s t r u m e n t , N a n Stein was virtually assured of the alarming results. A serious s t u d y of juvenile harassment needs a n o t h e r k i n d of a p p r o a c h . W e n e e d to k n o w w h e t h e r the cases cited were part of a m o r e general p r o b l e m of a b r e a k d o w n of civility a n d discipline a m o n g Ameri­ can adolescents, for example. Sexual harassment m a y indeed be m o r e prevalent today t h a n it has b e e n in the past. O n the other h a n d , its greater prevalence m a y b e d u e to the overall rise of antisocial behavior in Amer­ ican life rather t h a n to a rise in gender bias. W e ' d also w a n t to get a sense of h o w adolescent girls harass other girls. T h e p o i n t is that the Wellesley h a r a s s m e n t study is less concerned with girls' u n h a p p i n e s s t h a n w i t h h o w boys m a k e t h e m u n h a p p y . The study tells u s o n c e again h o w o u r society "shortchanges" a n d "silences" its females, giving the g e n d e r feminists a fresh s u p p l y of stories of female victimization a n d m a l e malfeasance. T h e survey m a y have been unscien­ tific, b u t it w a s perfectly designed for its real p u r p o s e . Susan McGee Bailey, a director at the Wellesley College Center for Research o n W o m e n , called the Seventeen survey a "wake-up call" a n d u r g e d everyone to "listen to the girls' v o i c e s . " She acknowledged, h o w ­ ever, that the survey was unscientific. T h e AAUW s o o n took u p the implicit challenge. In a survey c o n d u c t e d by the Louis Harris polling firm, a random sample of fifteen h u n d r e d boys a n d girls (grades eight t h r o u g h eleven) w e r e queried a b o u t harassment. T h e findings surprised everyone i n c l u d i n g the AAUW. F o u r of five students, male as well as female, r e p o r t e d being harassed. T h e study does suggest that o u r schools are the setting for a lot of incivility a n d even outright violence. It suggests that m a n y k i d s are erotically overstimulated. More than half the girls a n d nearly half the boys h a d b e e n t o u c h e d , grabbed, or p i n c h e d "in a sexual way." S o m e of t h e s t u d e n t s h a d b e e n r u b b e d u p against (57 percent of girls, 3 6 p e r c e n t of boys), s o m e h a d h a d clothing pulled at, a n d s o m e h a d received sexual n o t e s . T h e high incidence of sexually harassed males was a distinct embar81

82

THE

WELLESLEY

REPORT

185

rassment to the AAUW. H o w d o you p u t a g e n d e r bias spin on that k i n d of finding? O n c e again, the AAUW w a s u p to the challenge. Speaking to the Boston Globe, Alice McKee argued that the effects of the h a r a s s m e n t differ: "The b o t t o m line is that girls suffer adverse emotional, behavioral a n d educational i m p a c t s three times m o r e often t h a n boys as a result of sexual harassment." T h e Globe writer, Alison Bass, explained a n d ampli­ fied the point: Even t h o u g h boys reported being harassed almost as often as did girls, the survey . . . found that girls were far m o r e likely t h a n boys to w a n t to cut class a n d stay h o m e from school as a result of the harassment. Girls were also m o r e hesitant to speak u p in class a n d less confident a b o u t themselves after being sexually harassed, the survey f o u n d . 83

So once again w e are given to u n d e r s t a n d that "research suggests" the girls are being s h o r t c h a n g e d . T h e effects o n t h e m (in w a n t i n g to cut classes a n d stay h o m e ) w e r e m a r k e d l y worse. But wanting to cut classes a n d actually cutting classes are n o t the same, a n d the latter effect is j u s t the sort of thing w e can c h e c k . If McKee is right, girls s h o u l d b e s h o w i n g high rates of absenteeism, cutting class, a n d getting lower grades. In fact, girls have better a t t e n d a n c e a n d earn better grades than boys, a n d m o r e of t h e m graduate. This is n o t to say that girls a n d boys react to h a r a s s m e n t in the s a m e way. T h e response of girls to insults or slights m a y indeed b e m o r e dramatic, leading t h e m to express the desire to cut classes m o r e t h a n boys d o — a finding that w o u l d b e in keeping with those of W e n d y W o o d a n d her colleagues at Texas A & M , that "girls are m o r e aware of their feelings a n d m o r e accurate in reporting on negative e m o t i o n s . " 84

This time the AAUW's pollsters h a d c o m e u p w i t h findings that d i d not readily l e n d themselves to the "shortchanging" t h e m e . A n d for the first time s o m e skeptical voices began to speak u p in the p o p u l a r press. In a New York Times story, Felicity Barringer cited s t u d e n t s w h o criticized the survey for "characterizing too m a n y behaviors as sexual harassment." After the Boston Globe ran a story giving the exact spin the A A U W dic­ tated, reporter T h o m a s Palmer h a d d o u b t s a b o u t the validity of the ha­ rassment survey. H e a n d Alison Bass w r o t e a story questioning the A A U W findings a n d incorporating outside opinions. Billie Dziech, an expert o n sexual h a r a s s m e n t a n d the a u t h o r of o n e of the m o s t respected b o o k s o n the subject, The Lecherous Professor, p o i n t e d o u t that the inexact termi­ nology vitiated the AAUW r e p o r t . "There is a difference between s o m e ­ thing I w o u l d call 'sexual hassle' a n d 'sexual harassment.' " 85

186

W H O

STOLE

FEMINISM?

Jerry W e i n e r , president-elect of the American Psychiatry Association, told the Globe, "I have m a n y reservations a n d concerns a b o u t the reliabil­ ity of the data a n d using that k i n d of data to d r a w the b r o a d sweeping conclusions that w e r e d r a w n in the report." T o m W . Smith, the director of the National O p i n i o n Research Center at the University of Chicago, also criticized t h e vagueness of the questions a n d the wide range of possible interpretation. For the first time the merits of a n AAUW s t u d y alleging gender inequity w e r e n o t s i m p l y r e p o r t e d b u t actually debated on national television. Ted Koppel chose t h e AAUW's r e p o r t o n sexual harassment in grade schools as a subject for "Nightline." H e arranged a confrontation between N a n Stein a n d m e to d e b a t e its significance. Ms. Stein is an excellent protago­ nist, b u t s h e faltered w h e n I r e m i n d e d her that she h a d s p o k e n of the little boys w h o flipped u p the skirts of little girls in the schoolyard as "gender terrorists." A skeptical Mr. Koppel asked w h e t h e r she w o u l d call a schoolyard bully p i c k i n g o n a n o t h e r b o y a "terrorist" too. Ms. Stein m u s t n o t have enjoyed the experience—after o u r "Nightline" encounter, she b a c k e d o u t of a n o t h e r debate b e t w e e n us scheduled for a Boston television p r o g r a m the following week. T h e p r o d u c e r was too diplomatic to tell m e w h a t Ms. Stein h a d said a b o u t m e . "Let us j u s t say she does n o t like y o u very m u c h . " In D e c e m b e r 1 9 9 3 I took p a r t in a n o t h e r debate a b o u t harassment in the w o r k p l a c e w i t h A n n e Bryant, executive director of the AAUW, on ABC's "Lifetime Magazine." I said that the AAUW surveys were "tenden­ tious a n d biased." I b r o u g h t u p the fact that their harassment study h a d failed to distinguish b e t w e e n "casual banter, teasing, a n d serious harass­ m e n t . " Shaking h e r finger at m e , Bryant a d m o n i s h e d m e , "Christina, stop it! Do y o u w a n t to k n o w something? This is the last time you'll criticize the incredibly prestigious a n d well-run o r g a n i z a t i o n — t h e American As­ sociation of University W o m e n . " It w o u l d seem she feels that any criti­ cism of t h e A A U W is simply o u t of order a n d s h o u l d n o t be given a p u b l i c airing. In a n y case, the p r o d u c e r told m e that the AAUW's public relations director later tried to p e r s u a d e ABC n o t to r u n the debate. F e m i n i s m is n o t well served by biased studies or by media that tolerate a n d h e l p to p r o m o t e t h e m . H a d journalists, politicians, a n d education leaders b e e n d o i n g a p r o p e r j o b of checking sources, looking at the original data, a n d seeking dissenting opinions from scholars, h a d they n o t p u t their faith in glossy b r o c h u r e s a n d press releases, the alarming findings o n self-esteem, g e n d e r bias in the classroom, a n d harassment in the hallways w o u l d n o t b e automatically credited. In a s o u n d l y critical climate, the federal g o v e r n m e n t w o u l d n o t be on the verge of p o u r i n g 8 6

THE

WELLESLEY

REPORT

187

tens of millions of dollars into projects that will enrich the gender-bias industry a n d further w e a k e n o u r schools. A n d Ms. Bryant a n d the o t h e r current leaders of the AAUW w o u l d have learned s o m e time ago that the reputation of the A A U W m u s t inevitably be c o m p r o m i s e d by a n y o n e w h o uses its "incredible prestige" to p r o m o t e research w h o s e p r o b i t y a n d objectivity c a n n o t b e defended.

Chapter 9

Noble Lies

Pity, wrath, heroism filled them, but the power of putting two and two together was

annihilated.

— E . M . FORSTER, A Passage to India

Statistics a n d studies o n s u c h provocative subjects as eating disorders, rape, battery, a n d w a g e differentials are used to u n d e r s c o r e the plight of w o m e n in t h e oppressive g e n d e r system a n d to help recruit adherents to the g e n d e r feminist cause. But if the figures are n o t true, they almost never serve the interests of the victimized w o m e n they concern. Anorexia is a disease; b l a m i n g m e n does n o t h i n g to h e l p cure it. Battery a n d rape are crimes that shatter lives; those w h o suffer m u s t be cared for, a n d those w h o cause their suffering m u s t b e r e n d e r e d incapable of doing further h a r m . But in all w e d o to h e l p , the m o s t loyal ally is truth. T r u t h b r o u g h t to p u b l i c light recruits the best of us to w o r k for change. O n the other h a n d , even the best-intentioned "noble lie" ultimately discredits the finest of causes. G e n d e r feminist ideology h o l d s that physical menace toward w o m e n is the n o r m . T h e cause of battered w o m e n has b e e n a h a n d y b a n d w a g o n for this creed. Gloria Steinem's portrait of male-female intimacy u n d e r patriarchy is typical: "Patriarchy requires violence or the subliminal threat of violence in o r d e r to maintain itself. . . . T h e most dangerous situation for a w o m a n is n o t a n u n k n o w n m a n in the street, or even the e n e m y in

NOBLE

189

LIES

1

wartime, b u t a h u s b a n d or lover in the isolation of their o w n h o m e . " Steinem's description of the dangers w o m e n face in their o w n h o m e is reminiscent of the Super Bowl h o a x of J a n u a r y 1 9 9 3 . The reader m a y r e m e m b e r that s o m e days before that Super Bowl, American w o m e n w e r e alerted that a s h a r p increase in battering was to be expected on t h e day of the game. T h e implications w e r e sensational, b u t p u r p o r t e d l y there were reliable studies. In the c u r r e n t climate, the story h a d a certain ring of plausibility, a n d it quickly spread. Here is the chronology. 2

Thursday, January 27 A n e w s conference was called in Pasadena, California, the site of the forthcoming Super Bowl g a m e , by a coalition of w o m e n ' s g r o u p s . At the n e w s conference reporters w e r e informed that Super Bowl S u n d a y is "the biggest day of the year for violence against w o m e n . " Forty p e r c e n t m o r e w o m e n w o u l d b e battered o n that day. In s u p p o r t of the 4 0 p e r c e n t figure, Sheila Kuehl of the California W o m e n ' s Law Center cited a s t u d y d o n e at Virginia's O l d D o m i n i o n University three years before. T h e p r e s ­ ence of Linda Mitchell, a representative of a media " w a t c h d o g " g r o u p called Fairness a n d Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR), lent credibility to the claim. 3

At a b o u t this time a very large m e d i a mailing was sent by Dobisky Associates, FAIR'S publicists, w a r n i n g at-risk w o m e n : "Don't r e m a i n at h o m e w i t h h i m d u r i n g t h e g a m e . " T h e idea that sports fans are p r o n e to attack wives or girlfriends o n that climactic day p e r s u a d e d m a n y m e n as well: Robert Lipsyte of the New York Times w o u l d s o o n b e referring to the "Abuse B o w l . " 4

Friday, January 28 Lenore Walker, a Denver psychologist a n d a u t h o r of The Battered Woman, a p p e a r e d o n " G o o d M o r n i n g America" claiming to have c o m ­ piled a ten-year record s h o w i n g a s h a r p increase in violent incidents against w o m e n o n Super Bowl Sundays. Here, again, a representative from FAIR, Laura Flanders, was p r e s e n t to lend credibility to the claim.

Saturday, January 29 A story in t h e Boston Globe written b y Lynda Gorov reported that w o m e n ' s shelters a n d hotlines are "flooded w i t h m o r e calls from victims [on Super Bowl Sunday] t h a n o n a n y o t h e r day of t h e year." Gorov cited "one s t u d y of w o m e n ' s shelters o u t W e s t " that " s h o w e d a 4 0 p e r c e n t

190

W H O

STOLE

FEMINISM?

climb in calls, a p a t t e r n advocates said is repeated nationwide, including in M a s s a c h u s e t t s . " 5

Ms. G o r o v a s k e d specialists in domestic violence to explain the p h e ­ n o m e n o n . M a n y felt that everything a b o u t the Super Bowl is calculated to give m e n the idea that w o m e n are there for their use a n d abuse. "More t h a n o n e advocate m e n t i o n e d provocatively dressed cheerleaders at the g a m e m a y reinforce abusers' p e r c e p t i o n s that w o m e n are intended to serve m e n , " s h e w r o t e . According to N a n c y Isaac, an expert on domestic violence at the H a r v a r d School of Public Health, m e n see the violence as their right: "It's: 'I'm s u p p o s e d to b e king of m y castle, it's s u p p o s e d to b e m y day, a n d if y o u d o n ' t have d i n n e r ready on time, you're going to get i t . ' " O t h e r n e w s p a p e r s j o i n e d in. Robert Lipsyte described the connection b e t w e e n the tension generated by the big game a n d the violence it causes: " S o m e o n e s h u t u p that kid or someone's going to get p o u n d e d . " Michael Collier of the Oakland Tribune w r o t e that the Super Bowl causes "boy­ friends, h u s b a n d s a n d fathers" to "explode like m a d linemen, leaving girlfriends, wives a n d children b e a t e n . " Journalists a n d television com­ m e n t a t o r s all over the c o u n t r y s o u n d e d the alarm. CBS a n d the Associated Press called S u p e r Bowl S u n d a y a "day of dread," a n d j u s t before the game, NBC b r o a d c a s t a p u b l i c service s p o t r e m i n d i n g m e n that domestic violence is a crime. 6

7

In this roiling sea of m e d i a credulity was a lone island of professional integrity. Ken Ringle, a Washington Post staff writer, took the time to call a r o u n d to c h e c k o n the sources of the story. W h e n Ringle asked Janet Katz, professor of sociology a n d criminal justice at Old D o m i n i o n a n d o n e of the principal a u t h o r s of the study cited by Ms. Kuehl at the T h u r s d a y p r e s s conference, a b o u t the connection between violence a n d football games, she said: "That's n o t w h a t w e found at all." Instead, she told Ringle, they h a d found that a n increase in emergency r o o m admis­ sions "was n o t associated w i t h the occurrence of football games in gen­ eral." Ringle t h e n called Charles Patrick Ewing, a professor at the University of Buffalo, w h o m Dobisky Associates h a d q u o t e d as saying, "Super Bowl S u n d a y is o n e d a y in the year w h e n h o t lines, shelters a n d other agencies that w o r k w i t h battered w o m e n get the m o s t reports a n d complaints of d o m e s t i c violence." "I never said that," Ewing told Ringle. W h e n told a b o u t Ewing's denial, F r a n k Dobisky corrected himself, saying that the q u o t e s h o u l d have read "one of the days of the year." But that explanation 8

9

NOBLE

LIES

191

either m a k e s the claim incoherent, since only o n e day can have "the m o s t " battery complaints, or trivializes it, since any day (including April Fool's Day) could n o w be said to b e the day of h e i g h t e n e d brutality. Ringle checked w i t h Lynda Gorov, t h e Boston Globe reporter. Gorov told h i m she h a d never seen the s t u d y she cited b u t h a d b e e n told of it by FAIR. Ms. Mitchell of FAIR told Ringle that the authority for the 4 0 percent figure w a s Lenore Walker. Walker's office, in t u r n , referred calls on the subject to Michael Lindsey, a Denver psychologist a n d a n authority on battered w o m e n . Pressed by Ringle, Lindsey a d m i t t e d h e could find n o basis for the report. "I haven't been a n y m o r e successful t h a n you in tracking d o w n any of this," h e said. "You t h i n k m a y b e w e have o n e of these m y t h things here?" Later, other reporters got to Ms. Walker, pressing h e r to detail h e r findings. She said they w e r e n o t available. " W e d o n ' t use t h e m for p u b l i c c o n s u m p t i o n , " she explained, "we u s e d t h e m to guide us in advocacy projects." 10

It w o u l d have b e e n m o r e h o n e s t for the feminists w h o initiated the campaign to a d m i t that there was n o basis for saying that football fans are m o r e brutal to w o m e n t h a n are chess players or Democrats; n o r w a s there any basis for saying that there was a significant rise in d o m e s t i c violence o n Super Bowl Sunday. Ringle's unraveling of the " m y t h thing" was p u b l i s h e d o n the front page of the Washington Post o n J a n u a r y 3 1 . O n February 2, Boston Globe staff writer Bob H o h l e r p u b l i s h e d w h a t a m o u n t e d to a retraction of Ms. Gorov's story. H o h l e r h a d d o n e s o m e m o r e digging a n d h a d gotten FAIR'S Steven Rendell to b a c k off from the organization's earlier s u p p o r t of t h e claim. "It s h o u l d n o t have gone o u t in FAIR materials," said Rendell. Hohler got a n o t h e r set of interviews, this time w i t h psychologists w h o told h i m that they h a d their d o u b t s a b o u t the story from the very begin­ ning. O n e expert, J o a n Stiles, p u b l i c education coordinator for the Mas­ sachusetts Coalition of Battered W o m e n ' s Service G r o u p s , told the Globe that the S u p e r Bowl story "sensationalized a n d trivialized" the battering p r o b l e m , a n d d a m a g e d the cause's credibility. L u n d y Bancroft, a training director for a C a m b r i d g e - b a s e d counseling p r o g r a m for m e n w h o batter, said, "I disbelieved the 4 0 p e r c e n t thing from the m o m e n t I h e a r d it." Bancroft also suggested that the c a m p a i g n to pressure NBC to air the domestic-violence s p o t "unfairly stigmatized" football fans. "There is n o stereotypical batterer," h e said. Linda Mitchell from FAIR w o u l d later a c k n o w l e d g e that she was aware d u r i n g the original n e w s conference that Ms. Kuehl was misrepresenting

192

W H O

STOLE

FEMINISM?

the O l d D o m i n i o n study. Ringle asked her w h e t h e r she did not feel obligated to challenge h e r colleague. "I w o u l d n ' t d o that in front of the media," Mitchell said. "She has a right to report it as she wants." Hohler's investigations fully s u p p o r t e d the conclusions Ringle had reached. Ringle w r o t e : "Despite their dramatic claims, n o n e of the activists a p p e a r s to have a n y evidence that a link actually exists between football a n d wife-beating. Yet the c o n c e p t has gained s u c h credence that their c a m p a i g n has rolled o n anyway, u n a b a t e d . " Lenore W a l k e r w a s furious with Ken Ringle for criticizing her research. She attributed his unfriendly stance to male p i q u e at n o t being able to get t h r o u g h to h e r o n the p h o n e the day h e was writing his story. As she explained to the Boston Globe's Bob Hohler: "He [Ringle] felt as if h e was entitled to talk to m e ; because h e did n o t get w h a t h e was entitled to he got angry a n d d e c i d e d to use his p e n as a sword as a batterer does with his fist w h e n h e d o e s n o t get w h a t h e thinks he is entitled t o . " T h e shelters a n d h o t lines, w h i c h m o n i t o r e d the Sunday of the twentyseventh Super Bowl w i t h special care, reported n o variation in the n u m b e r of calls for h e l p that day, n o t even in Buffalo, w h o s e team (and fans) had suffered a c r u s h i n g defeat. As Michael Lindsey c o m m e n t e d to Ken Ringle, " W h e n p e o p l e m a k e crazy statements like this, the credibility of the whole cause can go right o u t the w i n d o w . " Despite Ringle's exposé, the Super Bowl Sunday "statistic" will be with us for a while, d o i n g its divisive w o r k of generating fear a n d resentment. In the b o o k How to Make the World a Better Place for Women in Five Minutes a Day, a c o m m e n t u n d e r the heading "Did You Know?" informs readers that "Super Bowl S u n d a y is the m o s t violent day of the year, with the highest r e p o r t e d n u m b e r of domestic battering c a s e s . " H o w a belief in that misandrist c a n a r d can m a k e the w o r l d a better place for w o m e n is n o t explained. 11

12

13

H o w m a n y w o m e n in the United States are brutalized by the m e n in their lives? Here is a cross section of the various answers that are given: D u r i n g the 9-year period, intimates c o m m i t t e d 5.6 million violent victimizations against w o m e n , an a n n u a l average of 6 2 6 , 0 0 0 . (U.S. D e p a r t m e n t of Justice, 1 9 9 1 ) 1 4

Approximately 1.8 million w o m e n a year are physically assaulted by their h u s b a n d s or boyfriends. (Behind Closed Doors: Violence in the American Family) 15

NOBLE

193

LIES

In the past year, 3 million w o m e n have b e e n battered. (Senator J o s e p h Biden, 1 9 9 1 ) 1 6

Total domestic violence, reported a n d u n r e p o r t e d , affects a m a n y as 4 million w o m e n a year. (Senator Biden's staff report, 1 9 9 2 ) 1 7

An estimated three to four million w o m e n are brutally beaten each year in the U.S. (Feminist Dictionary) 18

Nearly 6 million wives will b e a b u s e d by their h u s b a n d s in any o n e year. (Time magazine, September 5, 1983) More t h a n 5 0 p e r c e n t of all w o m e n will experience s o m e form of violence from their spouses d u r i n g marriage. More t h a n one-third are battered repeatedly every year. (National Coalition Against D o ­ mestic V i o l e n c e ) 19

The estimates of the n u m b e r of w o m e n beaten p e r s e c o n d vary: A w o m a n is beaten every eighteen seconds. (Gail Dines, 1 9 9 2 )

2 0

An American w o m a n is beaten by h e r h u s b a n d or boyfriend every 15 seconds. (New York Times, April 2 3 , 1993) Every twelve s e c o n d s , a w o m a n in the United States is beaten by her h u s b a n d or lover. (Mirabella, N o v e m b e r 1 9 9 3 ) 2 1

A gong [will be] s o u n d e d every ten s e c o n d s for a w o m a n being battered in the United States. ("The Clothesline Project," J o h n s H o p ­ kins U n i v e r s i t y ) 22

In the United States, every 7.4 s e c o n d s a w o m a n is beaten by her h u s b a n d . (Annals of Emergency Medicine, J u n e 1989) 6.5 million w o m e n annually are assaulted by their p a r t n e r s . . . o n e every five seconds. (BrotherPeace, 1 9 9 3 ) 2 3

Sometimes the s a m e source will give the figure b o t h in millions of w o m e n a n d in s e c o n d s — w i t h o u t acknowledging that the two are incon­ sistent. Since there are 3 1 , 5 3 6 , 0 0 0 s e c o n d s in a year, the fifteen-second rate w o u l d a m o u n t to 2.1 million assaults. Three to four million w o u l d m e a n o n e every 7.9 or 10.5 seconds. This mistake is c o m m o n : According to the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, 3 million to 4 million w o m e n are battered every year in the U.S.,

194

W H O

STOLE

FEMINISM?

o n e every 15 seconds. (Mary McGrory, Washington Post, October 20, 1987) Domestic violence affects an estimated 4 to 5 million w o m e n a year. Every 15 s e c o n d s , an American w o m a n is abused by her partner. (Christian Science Monitor, October 12, 1990) There are 3 million to 4 million w o m e n beaten by h u s b a n d s or lovers every year; that's o n e every 15 seconds. (Chicago Tribune, February 10, 1992)

Richard J. Gelles a n d Murray A. Straus are academic social scientists (from t h e University of R h o d e Island a n d the University of N e w H a m p ­ shire, respectively) w h o have b e e n studying domestic violence for m o r e t h a n twenty-five years. Their research is a m o n g the most respected a n d frequently cited b y other social scientists, by police, by the FBI, a n d by the p e r s o n n e l in d o m e s t i c violence agencies. For a long time, Gelles a n d Straus were highly regarded by feminist activists for the p i o n e e r w o r k they h a d d o n e in this once-neglected area. But they fell o u t of favor in the late 1970s because their findings were not informed by the "battery is caused by patriarchy" thesis. The fact that they w e r e m e n w a s also held against t h e m . Gelles a n d Straus d o find high levels of violence in m a n y American families; b u t in b o t h of their national surveys they found that w o m e n were j u s t as likely to engage in it as m e n . They also found that siblings are the m o s t violent of a l l . They distinguish between m i n o r violence, s u c h as t h r o w i n g objects, p u s h i n g , shoving, a n d slapping (no injuries, n o serious intimidation), a n d severe violence, such as kicking, hitting or trying to hit w i t h an object, hitting with fist, beating u p , a n d threatening w i t h g u n or k n i f e — a c t i o n s that have a high probability of leading to injury or are a c c o m p a n i e d b y the serious threat of injury. The vast major­ ity of family d i s p u t e s involve m i n o r violence rather than severe violence. In their 1 9 8 5 Second National Family Violence Survey, sponsored by the National Institute of Mental Health, they found that 16 percent of couples were v i o l e n t — t h e "Saturday Night Brawlers" (with the wife just as likely as the h u s b a n d to slap, grab, shove, or t h r o w things). In 3 to 4 percent of couples, there w a s at least o n e act of severe violence by the h u s b a n d against the wife. But in their surveys they also found that " w o m e n assault their p a r t n e r s at a b o u t the s a m e rate as m e n assault their partners. This applies to b o t h m i n o r a n d severe a s s a u l t s . " 24

25

NOBLE

195

LIES

Gelles a n d Straus are careful to say that w o m e n are far more likely to be injured a n d to n e e d medical care. But overall, the percentage of w o m e n w h o are injured seriously e n o u g h to n e e d medical care is still relatively small c o m p a r e d to the inflated claims of the g e n d e r feminists a n d the politicians—fewer t h a n 1 p e r c e n t . Murray Straus estimates that a p p r o x ­ imately 1 0 0 , 0 0 0 w o m e n p e r year are victims of the severe k i n d s of vio­ lence s h o w n in the TV film The Burning Bed. T h a t is a shockingly h i g h n u m b e r of victims, b u t it is far short of Senator Biden's claim, derived from feminist advocacy studies, that m o r e that three or four million w o m e n are victims of "horrifying" violence. Straus a n d Gelles have m a d e other discoveries n o t appreciated b y gender feminists. A m o n g t h e m is the finding that because of changing demographics a n d i m p r o v e d p u b l i c awareness, there was a significant decrease in wife battery b e t w e e n 1975 a n d 1 9 8 5 . Moreover, t h o u g h they once reported that battery increased d u r i n g pregnancy, they n o w say they were mistaken: "Data from the 1985 Second National Family Violence Survey indicate that the previously reported association b e t w e e n preg­ nancy a n d husband-to-wife violence is s p u r i o u s , a n d is an artifact of the effect of a n o t h e r variable, a g e . " Gelles a n d Straus consider domestic violence to b e a serious national problem. They have for years b e e n advocates for social, medical, a n d legal intervention to help battered w o m e n . All the same, according to their studies, m o r e t h a n 8 4 p e r c e n t of families are n o t violent, a n d a m o n g the 16 percent w h o are, nearly half the violence ( t h o u g h n o t half the injuries) is perpetrated b y w o m e n . Journalists, activists, a n d even g e n d e r feminists m a k e extensive use of Gelles a n d Straus's research. S o m e researchers m a n i p u l a t e their data to get shocking figures o n abuse. If you overlook the researchers' distinction between m i n o r a n d severe violence, if you never m e n t i o n that w o m e n d o just as m u c h of the shoving, grabbing, p u s h i n g , a n d slapping, you arrive at very high figures for battery: three million, four million, six million, d e p e n d i n g o n h o w slack you are in w h a t you c o u n t as battery. T h e National Coalition Against Domestic Violence gives shocking fig­ ures on a b u s e in their fundraising b r o c h u r e : "More t h a n 5 0 p e r c e n t of all w o m e n will experience s o m e form of violence from their spouses d u r i n g marriage. More t h a n one-third are battered repeatedly every year." W e get the impression that one-third of all married w o m e n ( 1 8 million) are repeatedly being battered. W h e r e did the coalition get these figures? Either they relied o n their o w n special g e n d e r feminist sources or they creatively interpreted the FBI's, D e p a r t m e n t of Justice's, or Gelles a n d 26

27

28

196

W H O

STOLE

FEMINISM?

Straus's studies to suit their p u r p o s e s . T h e latter is w h a t the C o m m o n ­ wealth F u n d , a N e w York State p h i l a n t h r o p y concerned with public health, did in their W o m e n ' s Health Survey.

In July 1 9 9 3 , the C o m m o n w e a l t h F u n d released the results of a tele­ p h o n e survey of 2 , 5 0 0 w o m e n , designed a n d carried out by Louis Harris a n d Associates. T h e C o m m o n w e a l t h a n d Harris investigators took their questions directly from the Gelles a n d Straus survey a n d got the following results: I w o u l d like you to tell m e w h e t h e r , in the past twelve m o n t h s , your s p o u s e or p a r t n e r ever: YES

1. Insulted y o u or swore at y o u 2. S t o m p e d o u t of the r o o m or h o u s e or yard 3 . T h r e a t e n e d to hit y o u or t h r o w s o m e t h i n g at y o u 4. T h r e w or s m a s h e d or hit or kicked something 5. T h r e w s o m e t h i n g at y o u 6. P u s h e d , g r a b b e d , shoved, or s l a p p e d you 7. Kicked, bit, or hit y o u w i t h a fist or s o m e o t h e r object 8. Beat you u p 9. C h o k e d y o u 10. T h r e a t e n e d y o u w i t h a knife or g u n 1 1 . Used a knife or g u n

NO

34%

66%

34

66

5

95

11

89

3

97

5

95

2 0 0

98 100 99

0 0

100 100

Using these findings, a n d based o n the a s s u m p t i o n that there are approximately 5 5 million w o m e n married or living with someone as a

NOBLE

197

LIES

couple, the H a r r i s / C o m m o n w e a l t h survey c o n c l u d e d that as m a n y as four million w o m e n a year were victims of physical assaults, a n d 2 0 . 7 million were verbally or emotionally a b u s e d by their p a r t n e r s . Newspapers a r o u n d the country, including the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, the Detroit News, a n d the San Francisco Chronicle, car­ ried the bleak tidings that 3 7 p e r c e n t of married w o m e n are emotionally abused a n d 3.9 million are physically assaulted every year. No o n e m e n t i o n e d that all the survey questions were taken from the questionnaire that Gelles a n d Straus h a d used in their 1 9 7 5 a n d 1 9 8 5 Family Violence Surveys with very different results. Interpreted as Gelles a n d Straus interpret the data, the survey actually s h o w e d that domestic violence was still decreasing. T h e survey h a d found that 2 - 3 percent of the r e s p o n d e n t s h a d suffered w h a t Gelles a n d Straus classify as "severe violence." But the m o s t interesting finding of all, a n d o n e entirely overlooked by the press, for it did n o t h a r m o n i z e with the notes of alarm in the Harris/ C o m m o n w e a l t h press releases, w a s the response the poll received to questions 8 t h r o u g h 1 1 , a b o u t the m o s t severe forms of violence. Gelles a n d Straus h a d estimated that these things h a p p e n to fewer t h a n 1 p e r c e n t of w o m e n . According to the survey sample, the percentage of w o m e n w h o h a d these experiences was virtually zero: all r e s p o n d e n t s a n s w e r e d " n o " to all the questions o n severe v i o l e n c e . This finding does not, of course, m e a n that n o o n e was brutally attacked. But it does suggest that severe violence is relatively r a r e . 29

30

31

32

So w h e r e did the four million figure for physical assault c o m e from? And the twenty million for psychological abuse? Clearly the interpreters of the H a r r i s / C o m m o n w e a l t h poll data were operating with a m u c h w i d e r conception of "abuse" than Gelles a n d Straus. Looking at the "survey instrument," w e find that they h a d indeed o p e n e d the d o o r w i d e to the alarmist conclusions they disseminated. For s o m e of the answers that Gelles a n d Straus c o u n t e d as m i n o r a n d n o t indicative of abuse, the H a r r i s / C o m m o n w e a l t h people took seriously. For example, the question­ naire asked " w h e t h e r in the past 12 m o n t h s y o u r p a r t n e r ever: 1) insulted you or swore at you; or 2) s t o m p e d out of the r o o m or h o u s e or yard." Thirty-four p e r c e n t of w o m e n answered "yes" to these questions, a n d all were classified as victims of "emotional a n d verbal abuse." H a d m e n b e e n included, o n e w o n d e r s w h e t h e r they w o u l d n o t have p r o v e d to b e equally "abused." To arrive at the figure of four million for physical abuse, the survey used the simple expedient of ignoring the distinction b e t w e e n m i n o r a n d severe violent acts, c o u n t i n g all acts of violence as acts of abuse. Five

198

W H O

STOLE

FEMINISM?

p e r c e n t of the w o m e n they s p o k e to said they h a d been "pushed, grabbed, shoved, or slapped"; they were all classified as victims of domestic vio­ lence a n d a d d e d in to get a projection of four million victims nationwide. N o effort w a s m a d e to find o u t if the aggression was m u t u a l or w h e t h e r it w a s physically harmful or seriously intimidating. If a couple has a fight, a n d she s t o m p s o u t of the r o o m (or yard), a n d h e grabs her arm, this w o u l d c o u n t as a violent physical assault o n h e r . If the survey's data can b e trusted a n d w e interpret t h e m in the careful a n d reasonable w a y that Gelles a n d Straus r e c o m m e n d , then w e may learn that the w o r s t k i n d s of a b u s e m a y be abating. That is still nothing to celebrate. If u p to 3 p e r c e n t of American w o m e n w h o are married or living w i t h p a r t n e r s are at risk of serious abuse, that w o u l d a m o u n t to 1.6 million w o m e n . If the higher figures Gelles a n d Straus found are right ( 3 - 4 p e r c e n t ) , t h e n the n u m b e r of w o m e n at risk is 2.2 million. Both n u m b e r s are tragically large a n d s p e a k of an urgent need for prevention a n d for shelters a n d o t h e r h e l p for the victims. But h o w d o e s this h e l p the gender feminist in her misandrist cam­ paign? She n e e d s to find that a large p r o p o r t i o n of m e n are batterers; a meager 3 or 4 p e r c e n t will n o t serve her p u r p o s e . As for journalists a n d the newscasters, their interests too often lie in giving a sensational rather t h a n a n accurate p i c t u r e of g e n d e r violence, a n d they tend to credit the advocacy sources. Better four million or five than one or two. Evidently, Time magazine felt six w a s even better. A n d all the better, too, if the media's readers a n d viewers get the impression that the inflated figures refer n o t to slaps, shoves, or p u s h e s b u t to brutal, terrifying, life-threat­ ening assaults. 33

G e n d e r feminists are c o m m i t t e d to the doctrine that the vast majority of batterers or rapists are n o t fringe characters b u t m e n w h o m society regards as n o r m a l — s p o r t s fans, former fraternity brothers, pillars of the c o m m u n i t y . For these " n o r m a l " m e n , w o m e n are n o t so m u c h persons as "objects." In the g e n d e r feminist view, once a w o m a n is "objectified" a n d therefore n o longer h u m a n , battering her is simply the next logical step. J u s t h o w " n o r m a l " are m e n w h o batter? Are they ordinary husbands? These are legitimate questions, b u t the road to reasonable answers is all too often b l o c k e d b y feminist d o g m a s . By setting aside the feminist road­ blocks, w e can discern s o m e i m p o r t a n t truths. Are the batterers really j u s t y o u r average Joe? If the state of Massachu­ setts is typical—the large majority of batterers are criminals. A n d r e w Klein,

NOBLE

199

LIES

chief p r o b a t i o n officer in Q u i n c y Court, Quincy, Massachusetts, studied repeat batterers for the Ford F o u n d a t i o n . In his final report h e said, " W h e n Massachusetts c o m p u t e r i z e d its civil restraining order files in 1992, linking t h e m w i t h the state's criminal offender record data base, it found that almost 8 0 p e r c e n t of the first 8,500 male subjects of restraining orders h a d prior criminal records in the s t a t e . " Many of the batterers' records were for offenses like d r u n k driving a n d drugs, b u t almost half h a d prior histories of violence against male a n d female victims. Klein continues: "In other w o r d s , these m e n were gen­ erally violent, assaulting other males as well as female intimates. T h e average n u m b e r of prior crimes against p e r s o n s complaints was 4 . 5 " (my e m p h a ­ sis). T h e g e n d e r feminist believes that the average m a n is a potential batterer because that is h o w m e n are "socialized" in the patriarchy. But ideology aside, there are indications that those w h o batter are not average. Talk of a generalized misogyny m a y b e preventing u s from seeing a n d facing the particular effect o n w o m e n a n d m e n of the large criminal element in o u r society. Massachusetts m a y n o t be typical. Still, the Massachusetts batterers' profile suggests it is n o t helpful to t h i n k of battery exclusively in terms of misogyny, patriarchy, or g e n d e r bias. W e n e e d to u n d e r s t a n d w h y the n u m b e r of sociopaths in o u r society, especially violent male sociopaths, is so high. My prediction is that Mr. Klein's i m p o r t a n t findings will b e ignored. W h a t use is it to g e n d e r warriors like Marilyn French a n d Gloria Steinem to s h o w that violent criminals t e n d to abuse their wives a n d girlfriends a n d other males as well? Their p r i m a r y concern is to p e r s u a d e the p u b l i c that the so-called n o r m a l m a n is a morally defective h u m a n being w h o gets off o n h u r t i n g w o m e n . 34

35

There are other i m p o r t a n t studies that could h e l p s h e d light o n batter­ ing a n d could ultimately help m a n y victims w h o are ignored because their batterers d o n o t fit the g e n d e r feminist s t e r e o t y p e . It t u r n s o u t that lesbians m a y b e battering each other at the s a m e rate as heterosexuals. Several b o o k s a n d articles d o c u m e n t the p r o b l e m of violence a m o n g lesbians. Professor Claire Renzetti, a professor of sociology at St. J o s e p h ' s University in Philadelphia, has studied the p r o b l e m of lesbian violence a n d s u m m a r i z e d the findings in Violent Betrayal: Partner Abuse in Lesbian Relationships: 36

37

200

W H O

STOLE

FEMINISM?

It a p p e a r s that violence in lesbian relationships occurs at about the s a m e frequency as violence in heterosexual relationships. T h e abuse may. . . . [range] from verbal threats a n d insults to stabbings a n d shootings. Indeed, batterers display a terrifying ingenuity in their selection of abusive tactics, frequently tailoring the abuse to the specific vulnerabilities of their p a r t n e r s . 38

O n c e again, it a p p e a r s that battery m a y have very little to d o with patriarchy or g e n d e r bias. W h e r e noncriminals are involved, battery seems to b e a p a t h o l o g y of intimacy, as frequent a m o n g gays as a m o n g straight p e o p l e . Battery a n d rape research is the very stuff of gender feminist advocacy. Researchers w h o try to p u r s u e their investigations in a nonpolitical way are often subject to attack by the advocates. Murray Straus reports that h e a n d s o m e of his co-workers "became the object of bitter scholarly a n d p e r s o n a l attacks, including threats a n d attempts at i n t i m i d a t i o n . " In the late seventies a n d early eighties his scholarly presentations were s o m e t i m e s o b s t r u c t e d by booing, shouting, or picketing. W h e n he was being considered for offices in scientific societies, h e was labeled an antifeminist. In the N o v e m b e r 1 9 9 3 issue of Mirabella, Richard Gelles a n d Murray Straus w e r e accused of using "sexist 'reasoning' " a n d of p r o d u c i n g w o r k s of " p o p 'scholarship.' " T h e article offers n o evidence for these j u d g ­ m e n t s . In 1 9 9 2 a r u m o r w a s circulated that Murray Straus h a d beaten his wife a n d sexually harassed his students. Straus fought back as best h e could a n d in o n e instance was able to elicit a written apology from a d o m e s t i c violence activist. Richard Gelles claims that w h e n e v e r male researchers question exag­ gerated findings o n domestic battery, it is never long before r u m o r s begin circulating that h e is himself a batterer. For female skeptics, however, the situation a p p e a r s to b e equally intimidating. W h e n Suzanne K. Steinmetz, a co-investigator in the First National Family Violence Survey, was being considered for p r o m o t i o n , the feminists l a u n c h e d a letter-writing cam­ paign urging that it b e denied. She also received calls threatening her a n d h e r family, a n d there w a s a b o m b threat at a conference w h e r e she spoke. As long as researchers are t h u s intimidated, w e will probably remain in the d a r k a b o u t the t r u e d i m e n s i o n of a p r o b l e m that affects the lives of millions of American w o m e n . A n o t h e r factor limiting the prospects for s o u n d research in this area is the absence of a rigorous system of review. In most fields, w h e n a wellk n o w n s t u d y is flawed, critics can m a k e a n a m e for themselves by show39

40

NOBLE

201

LIES

ing u p its defects. This process keeps researchers honest. However, in today's e n v i r o n m e n t for feminist research, the higher y o u r figures for abuse, the m o r e likely you'll reap rewards, regardless of y o u r m e t h o d o l ­ ogy. You'll be m e n t i o n e d in feminist encyclopedias, dictionaries, "fact sheets," a n d textbooks. Your research will b e widely publicized; Ellen G o o d m a n , A n n a Q u i n d l e n , a n d J u d y M a n n will p u t you in their c o l u m n s . Fashion magazines will r e p r o d u c e y o u r charts a n d graphs. You m a y b e q u o t e d by Pat Schroeder, J o s e p h Biden, a n d surgeon generals from b o t h parties. Senator Kennedy's office will call. You s h o u l d expect to b e invited to give expert testimony before Congress. As for w o u l d - b e critics, they're in for grief. T h e same Time magazine story that r e p o r t e d on the nonexistent M a r c h of Dimes s t u d y also informed readers that "between 2 2 p e r c e n t a n d 3 5 percent of all visits by females to emergency r o o m s are for injuries from domestic assaults." This bit of data is o n e of the m o s t frequently cited statistics in the literature o n violence against w o m e n . It regularly t u r n s u p in n e w s stories o n wife abuse. It is in the b r o c h u r e s from domestic violence agencies, a n d it is o n the tip of m a n y politicians' tongues. W h e r e does it c o m e from? T h e p r i m a r y source is a 1984 article entitled " D o m e s ­ tic Violence Victims in the Emergency D e p a r t m e n t , " in the Journal of the American Medical Association.* Going to the study, w e find that it w a s c o n d u c t e d at the H e n r y Ford Hospital in d o w n t o w n Detroit. T h e a u t h o r s candidly inform u s that their s a m p l e g r o u p was n o t representative of the American p o p u l a t i o n at large. Of the 4 9 2 patients w h o r e s p o n d e d to a questionnaire a b o u t domestic violence, they report that 9 0 p e r c e n t w e r e from inner-city Detroit a n d 6 0 p e r c e n t w e r e u n e m p l o y e d . W e also learn that the 2 2 p e r c e n t figure covers both w o m e n a n d m e n . Thirty-eight percent of those complaining of a b u s e w e r e m e n . 1

42

4 3

The a u t h o r s of the Detroit s t u d y took care to p o i n t o u t its limited scope, b u t the editors at the Journal of the American Medical Association w h o reported their results were n o t as careful. In a 1990 c o l u m n called "News U p d a t e " w e read that "22 p e r c e n t to 3 5 p e r c e n t of w o m e n p r e ­ senting w i t h a n y complaints are there because of s y m p t o m s relating to ongoing abuse." In the footnotes they cite the 1984 Detroit study, a p a p e r by Evan Stark a n d A n n e Flitcraft, a n d a 1 9 8 9 s t u d y p u b l i s h e d in the Annals of Emergency Medicine. Stark a n d Flitcraft are p e r h a p s the two b e s t - k n o w n researchers o n domestic battery a n d emergency r o o m admissions. Their figures for emer­ gency r o o m visits caused by domestic battering go as high as 5 0 p e r c e n t . But they, too, base their n u m b e r s o n studies at large u r b a n hospitals. Their figures are higher t h a n those of the Detroit s t u d y because their 44

45

202

W H O

STOLE

FEMINISM?

m e t h o d is to review old medical records a n d estimate h o w m a n y w o m e n were b a t t e r e d — n o t relying simply o n w h a t the w o m a n or the attending clinician m a y have said. T h e y have developed w h a t they call an "index of suspicion." If a w o m a n w a s assaulted b u t the records d o not say w h o hit her, Stark a n d Flitcraft classify this as a case of "probable" domestic abuse; if she has injuries to h e r face a n d torso that are inadequately explained ("I ran into a d o o r " ) , they classify it as "suggestive" of abuse. They say: "Overall, the n o n a b u s i v e injuries t e n d to b e to the extremities, whereas the a b u s e injuries t e n d to b e central (face or torso)." This m e t h o d , cou­ p l e d w i t h their exclusive reliance o n records from large u r b a n hospitals, leads t h e m to very high n u m b e r s o n abuse. Stark a n d Flitcraft's m e t h o d o l o g y is innovative a n d imaginative, a n d m a y i n d e e d h e l p practitioners identify m o r e w o m e n w h o are victimized b y abuse. Still, the m e t h o d o l o g y is highly subjective. Stark a n d Flitcraft's t e n d e n c y to lapse into g e n d e r feminist j a r g o n raises questions a b o u t their objectivity. In a n article called "Medicine a n d Patriarchal Violence," they speculate o n w h y w o m e n marry: "Economic discrimination against w o m e n in capitalist societies—job segregation by sex, marginal employ­ m e n t a n d lower w a g e s — d r i v e s w o m e n to marry, apply their undervalued labor time to h o u s e h o l d d r u d g e r y , a n d to remain d e p e n d e n t on m e n generally, if n o t o n a specific h u s b a n d , boyfriend or father." T h e y w o r r y that w o m e n ' s shelters m a y b e co-opted by a "bourgeois ideology" that diverts w o m e n from the need for a "fundamental social r e v o l u t i o n . " T h e y cite Karl Marx, Franz Fanon, Herbert Marcuse, a n d Michel Foucault as if they are u n q u e s t i o n e d authorities o n gender politics a n d o n capitalism. T h e y criticize Friedrich E n g e l s — b u t only because they say h e s o u n d s too m u c h like a "bourgeois m o r a l i s t . " Flitcraft a n d Stark a p p e a r to regard the a b u s e they claim to have found as the sort of thing o n e s h o u l d expect to find in a bourgeois capitalist patriarchy. But it often w o r k s the o t h e r way, too: y o u choose a research methodology that will give you the findings y o u expect. T h e Journal of the American Medical Association cites a third source for the 2 2 - 3 5 p e r c e n t statistic, a n article called "Education Is Not Enough: A Systems Failure in Protecting Battered W o m e n , " from the Annals of Emergency Medicine. T h a t article reports o n a small study d o n e of the "emergency d e p a r t m e n t records of a medical school serving the inner-city p o p u l a t i o n " of Philadelphia. Like Flitcraft a n d Stark, by using "guess­ timates" a n d focusing o n the s e g m e n t of the population with highest overall rates of violence, the researchers were able to get very high figures — u p to 3 0 percent. In e x a m i n i n g research o n battery, o n e sees that respected medical 46

47

48

NOBLE

203

LIES

periodicals uncritically indulge the feminists in their inflationary t e n d e n ­ cies. It is h a r d to avoid the impression that the medical j o u r n a l s have d r o p p e d their usual s t a n d a r d s w h e n reporting the findings of the battery studies. It is pretty clear that studies of this p o o r caliber o n s o m e o t h e r subject of medical interest a n d i m p o r t a n c e w o u l d either n o t b e reported or be reported w i t h m a n y caveats. To m y m i n d , giving research o n " w o m ­ en's topics" a b n o r m a l latitude is patronizingly sexist. In N o v e m b e r of 1992 the Family Violence Prevention F u n d did a survey of all 3 9 7 emergency d e p a r t m e n t s in California hospitals. N u r s e managers w e r e asked, "During a typical m o n t h , approximately h o w m a n y patients have b e e n diagnosed w i t h an injury caused by domestic vio­ lence?" T h e n u r s e s ' estimates ranged from two p e r m o n t h for small h o s ­ pitals to eight p e r m o n t h for the large hospitals. This finding c o r r e s p o n d s to Gelles a n d Straus's low figure for violence that could require hospital­ ization. Those w h o did the fund survey did n o t accept its results; they con­ cluded instead that the n u r s e s are simply n o t e q u i p p e d to deal w i t h the p r o b l e m a n d are vastly understating it. "The low identity rates r e p o r t e d in this survey m i g h t b e explained by the m a r k e d lack of domestic vio­ lence-specific training." O n e m a y agree that nurses a n d doctors d o n e e d that k i n d of training. O n the other h a n d , the l o w rates of battery they found s o u n d plausible; for unlike all the other studies o n emergency r o o m s a n d violence, this o n e actually polled a fair cross section of h o s p i ­ tals. Because m a n y feminist activists a n d researchers have so great a stake in exaggerating the p r o b l e m a n d so little c o m p u n c t i o n in doing so, objec­ tive information o n battery is very h a r d to c o m e by. T h e Super Bowl story was a bald u n t r u t h from the start. T h e "rule of t h u m b " story is a n e x a m p l e of revisionist history that feminists happily fell into believing. It reinforces their perspective o n society, a n d they tell it as a way of w i n n i n g converts to their angry creed. As it is told in the o p e n i n g essay in o n e of the m o s t p o p u l a r textbooks in w o m e n ' s studies, Women: A Feminist Perspective, "The p o p u l a r expres­ sion 'rule of t h u m b ' originated from English c o m m o n law, w h i c h allowed a h u s b a n d to beat his wife w i t h a w h i p or stick n o bigger in diameter than his t h u m b . T h e h u s b a n d ' s prerogative was incorporated into Amer­ ican law. Several states h a d statutes that essentially allowed a m a n to beat his wife w i t h o u t interference from the c o u r t s . " The story is s u p p o s e d to bring h o m e to s t u d e n t s the realization that they have b e e n b o r n into a system that tolerates violence against w o m e n . Sheila Kuehl, the feminist legal activist w h o h a d played a central role in 49

204

W H O

STOLE

FEMINISM?

l a u n c h i n g the "Abuse Bowl" hoax, a p p e a r e d o n CNN's "Sonya Live" four m o n t h s after the incident, h o l d i n g forth o n the s u p p o s e d history of the rule a n d acclaiming the N e w Feminists for finally striking back: "I think we're u n d o i n g t h o u s a n d s a n d t h o u s a n d s of years of h u m a n history. You k n o w the p h r a s e 'rule of t h u m b ' that everybody thinks is the standard m e a s u r e of everything? It w a s a law in England that said you could beat y o u r wife w i t h a stick as l o n g as it w a s n o thicker . . . than y o u r t h u m b . " C o l u m n i s t s a n d journalists writing a b o u t domestic violence were quick to p i c k u p o n the a n e c d o t e . 5 0

T h e colloquial p h r a s e "rule of t h u m b " is supposedly derived from the ancient right of a h u s b a n d to discipline his wife with a rod "no thicker t h a n his t h u m b . " (Time magazine, September 5, 1983) A h u s b a n d ' s right to beat his wife is included in Blackstone's 1768 codification of the c o m m o n law. H u s b a n d s h a d the right to "physi­ cally chastise" an errant wife so long as the stick was n o bigger than their t h u m b — t h e so-called "rule of t h u m b . " (Washington Post, Jan­ uary 3 , 1989) Violence against w o m e n does n o t have to be the rule of t h u m b — a n i d i o m from a n old English law that said a m a n could beat his wife if the stick w a s n o thicker t h a n his t h u m b . (Atlanta Constitution, April 2 2 , 1993) T h e "rule of t h u m b , " however, t u r n s out to be an excellent example of w h a t m a y b e called a feminist fiction. It is n o t to be found in William Blackstone's treatise o n English c o m m o n law. O n the contrary, British law since the 1 7 0 0 s a n d o u r American laws predating the Revolution p r o h i b i t wife beating, t h o u g h there have been periods a n d places in w h i c h the p r o h i b i t i o n w a s only indifferently enforced. T h a t the p h r a s e did n o t even originate in legal practice could have b e e n ascertained by a n y fact-checker w h o took the trouble to look it u p in the Oxford English Dictionary, w h i c h notes that the term has been used metaphorically for at least three h u n d r e d years to refer to any m e t h o d of m e a s u r e m e n t or t e c h n i q u e of estimation derived from experi­ ence rather t h a n science. According to C a n a d i a n folklorist Philip Hiscock, "The real explanation of 'rule of t h u m b ' is that it derives from w o o d workers . . . w h o k n e w their trade so well they rarely or never fell back on the use of such things as rulers. Instead, they w o u l d m e a s u r e things by, for example, the length of their t h u m b s . " Hiscock a d d s that the p h r a s e came into metaphorical 51

NOBLE

LIES

205

52

use by the late seventeenth c e n t u r y . Hiscock could n o t track the source of the idea that the term derives from a principle governing wife beating, b u t h e believes it is an example of " m o d e r n folklore" a n d compares it to other "back-formed explanations," s u c h as the claim that asparagus comes from "sparrow-grass" or that "ring a r o u n d the rosy" is a b o u t the b u b o n i c plague. W e shall see that Hiscock's h u n c h was correct, b u t w e m u s t begin by exonerating William Blackstone ( 1 7 2 3 - 8 0 ) , the Englishman w h o codified centuries of disparate a n d inchoate legal customs a n d practices into the elegant a n d clearly organized t o m e k n o w n as Commentaries on the Laws of England. The Commentaries, universally regarded as a classic of legal liter­ ature, b e c a m e the basis for the d e v e l o p m e n t of American law. T h e socalled rule of t h u m b as a guideline for wife beating does n o t occur in Blackstone's c o m p e n d i u m , a l t h o u g h h e does refer to an ancient law that permitted "domestic chastisement": The h u s b a n d . . . by the old law, m i g h t give his wife m o d e r a t e cor­ rection. For, as h e is to answer for her misbehaviour, the law t h o u g h t it reasonable to intrust h i m w i t h this p o w e r of restraining her, by domestic chastisement, in the same m o d e r a t i o n that a m a n is allowed to correct his apprentices or children. . . . But this p o w e r of correction was confined within reasonable b o u n d s a n d the h u s ­ b a n d was prohibited from using any violence to his wife. . . . But with us, in the politer reign of Charles the Second, this power of correc­ tion began to be doubted; and a wife may now have security of the peace against her husband. . . . Yet [among] the lower r a n k of p e o p l e . . . the courts of law will still p e r m i t a h u s b a n d to restrain a wife of h e r liberty in case of any gross misbehaviour [emphasis a d d e d ] . 53

Blackstone plainly says that c o m m o n law prohibited violence against wives, a l t h o u g h the prohibitions w e n t largely unenforced, especially where the "lower r a n k of p e o p l e " were concerned. In America, there have b e e n laws against wife beating since before the Revolution. By 1870, it was illegal in almost every state; b u t even before then, wife-beaters were arrested a n d p u n i s h e d for assault a n d b a t t e r y . The historian a n d feminist Elizabeth Pleck observes in a scholarly article entitled "Wife-Battering in N i n e t e e n t h - C e n t u r y America": 54

It has often b e e n claimed that wife-beating in nineteenth-century America was legal. . . . Actually, t h o u g h , several states passed stat-

206

W H O

STOLE

FEMINISM?

utes legally p r o h i b i t i n g wife-beating; a n d at least one statute even p r e d a t e s the A m e r i c a n Revolution. T h e Massachusetts Bay Colony p r o h i b i t e d wife-beating as early as 1655. The edict states: "No m a n shall strike his wife n o r a n y w o m a n her h u s b a n d on penalty of such fine n o t exceeding ten p o u n d s for o n e offense, or such corporal p u n i s h m e n t as the C o u n t y shall d e t e r m i n e . " 55

She p o i n t s o u t that p u n i s h m e n t s for wife-beaters could be severe: according to a n 1 8 8 2 Maryland statute, the culprit could receive forty lashes at the w h i p p i n g post; in Delaware, the n u m b e r was thirty. In N e w Mexico, fines ranging from $ 2 5 5 to $ 1 , 0 0 0 were levied, or sentences of o n e to five years in p r i s o n i m p o s e d . For most of o u r history, in fact, wife beating has b e e n considered a sin comparable to thievery or adultery. Religious g r o u p s — e s p e c i a l l y Protestant g r o u p s such as Quakers, Meth­ odists, a n d B a p t i s t s — p u n i s h e d , s h u n n e d , a n d excommunicated wifebeaters. H u s b a n d s , b r o t h e r s , a n d neighbors often took vengeance against the batterer. Vigilante parties sometimes a b d u c t e d wife-beaters a n d whipped them. 56

57

J u s t h o w did the false a c c o u n t originate, a n d h o w did it achieve au­ thority a n d currency? As w i t h m a n y m y t h s , there is a small core of fact s u r r o u n d e d b y a n accretion of error. In the course of rendering rulings o n cases before t h e m , two S o u t h e r n j u d g e s h a d alluded to an "ancient law" a c c o r d i n g to w h i c h a m a n could beat his wife as long as the imple­ m e n t w a s n o t w i d e r t h a n his t h u m b . T h e j u d g e s , one from N o r t h Carolina a n d o n e from Mississippi, did n o t accept the authority of the "ancient law." T h e N o r t h Carolina j u d g e referred to it as "barbarism," a n d b o t h j u d g e s found the h u s b a n d in the case in question guilty of wife a b u s e . Nevertheless, their rulings s e e m e d to tolerate the notion that m e n h a d a m e a s u r e of latitude in physically chastising their wives. Fortunately, as Pleck takes p a i n s to r e m i n d us, they were n o t representative of judicial o p i n i o n in the rest of the c o u n t r y . In 1 9 7 6 , Del Martin, a coordinator of the N O W Task Force on Battered W o m e n , c a m e across a reference to the two j u d g e s a n d their r e m a r k s . Neither j u d g e h a d u s e d the p h r a s e "rule of t h u m b , " b u t a t h u m b h a d b e e n m e n t i o n e d , a n d Ms. Martin took note of it: 58

59

60

O u r law, based u p o n the old English c o m m o n - l a w doctrines, ex­ plicitly p e r m i t t e d wife-beating for correctional purposes. However, certain restrictions did exist. . . . For instance, the c o m m o n - l a w doc­ trine h a d b e e n modified to allow the h u s b a n d "the right to w h i p his

NOBLE

LIES

207

wife, provided that h e used a switch n o bigger t h a n his t h u m b " — a rule of t h u m b , so to s p e a k . 61

Ms. Martin h a d n o t claimed that the term "rule of t h u m b " originated from c o m m o n law. Before long, however, the "ancient law" alluded to by two obscure S o u t h e r n j u d g e s was being treated as an unchallenged prin­ ciple of b o t h British a n d American law, a n d journalists a n d academics alike were b a n d y i n g the n o t i o n about. Feminist Terry Davidson, in an article entitled "Wife Beating: A Recurring P h e n o m e n o n T h r o u g h o u t His­ tory," claims that "one of the reasons n i n e t e e n t h century British wives were dealt w i t h so harshly by their h u s b a n d s a n d by their legal system was the 'rule of t h u m b ' " a n d castigates Blackstone himself. "Blackstone saw n o t h i n g unreasonable a b o u t the wife-beating law. In fact, h e believed it to be quite m o d e r a t e . " These interpretive errors were given a d d e d authority by a g r o u p of scholars a n d lawyers w h o , in 1982, p r e p a r e d a report o n wife a b u s e for the United States C o m m i s s i o n on Civil Rights, Under the Rule of Thumb: Battered Women and the Administration of Justice—A Report of the United States Commission on Civil Rights. O n the second page, they note: "Ameri­ can law is built u p o n the British c o m m o n law that c o n d o n e d wife beating a n d even prescribed the w e a p o n to b e used. This 'rule of t h u m b ' stipu­ lated that a m a n could only beat his wife with a 'rod n o t thicker than his t h u m b . ' " It w e n t on to speak of Blackstone as the jurist w h o "greatly influenced the m a k i n g of the law in the American colonies [and w h o ] c o m m e n t e d o n the 'rule of t h u m b , ' " justifying the rule by noting that "the law t h o u g h t it reasonable to intrust [the h u s b a n d ] w i t h this p o w e r of. . . chastisement, in the same m o d e r a t i o n that a m a n is allowed to correct his apprentices or c h i l d r e n . " 6 2

63

6 4

65

The publication of the report established the feminist fable a b o u t the origins of the t e r m in p o p u l a r lore, a n d the misogyny of Blackstone a n d "our law" as "fact." Misstatements a b o u t the "rule of t h u m b " still a p p e a r in the p o p u l a r press. The same 1 9 9 3 Time magazine article that popularized the nonexistent March of Dimes s t u d y on domestic violence a n d birth defects a n d re­ ported that "between 22 percent a n d 3 5 p e r c e n t of all visits by females to emergency r o o m s are for injuries from domestic assaults" also cited N e w York University law professor Holly Maguigan: " W e talk a b o u t the n o t i o n of the rule of t h u m b , forgetting that it h a d to d o with the restriction on a man's right to use a w e a p o n against his wife: h e couldn't use a r o d that was larger than his t h u m b . " Professor Maguigan's law s t u d e n t s w o u l d d o well to check their Blackstone. 6 6

208

W H O

STOLE

FEMINISM?

W e react to batterers w i t h revulsion—first, because of w h a t they d o , w h i c h is ugly a n d cruel; a n d second, because of w h a t they are, w h i c h is cowardly a n d often sadistic. As those w o r k i n g in the social services a n d the shelters well k n o w , helping battered w o m e n is as difficult as it is exigent. Resources are limited, a n d strategies for help are often controver­ sial. O n a w i d e r canvas, w e n e e d g o o d legislation a n d good public policy as well as funds e a r m a r k e d t o w a r d the p r o b l e m . But s o u n d public policy o n battery c a n n o t b e m a d e w i t h o u t credible a n d trustworthy information. In p r o m u l g a t i n g sensational u n t r u t h s , the gender feminists systematically diminish p u b l i c trust. Experts concerned a b o u t battery a n d devoted to alleviating it are worried. As Michael Lindsey said to Ken Ringle, " W h e n p e o p l e m a k e crazy statements like this, the credibility of the whole cause can go right o u t the w i n d o w . "

Chapter 10

Rape Research

I apologize to the reader for the clinical tone of this chapter. As a crime against the p e r s o n , rape is uniquely horrible in its long-term effects. T h e anguish it brings is often followed by an abiding sense of fear a n d s h a m e . Discussions of the data o n rape inevitably seem callous. H o w can o n e quantify the sense of d e e p violation b e h i n d the statistics? T e r m s like incidence a n d prevalence are statistical jargon; once w e use t h e m , w e n e c ­ essarily abstract ourselves from the misery. Yet, it remains clear that to arrive at intelligent policies a n d strategies to decrease the occurrence of rape, w e have n o alternative b u t to gather a n d analyze data, a n d to d o so does not m a k e us callous. T r u t h is n o e n e m y to compassion, a n d false­ h o o d is n o friend. Some feminists routinely refer to American society as a "rape culture." Yet estimates on the prevalence of rape vary wildly. According to the FBI Uniform Crime Report, there were 1 0 2 , 5 6 0 reported rapes or a t t e m p t e d rapes in 1 9 9 0 . T h e Bureau of Justice Statistics estimates that 1 3 0 , 0 0 0 w o m e n were victims of rape in 1 9 9 0 . A Harris poll sets the figure at 1

2

210

W H O

STOLE

FEMINISM? 3

3 8 0 , 0 0 0 rapes or sexual assaults for 1 9 9 3 . According to a study by the National Victims Center, there were 6 8 3 , 0 0 0 completed forcible rapes in 1 9 9 0 . T h e Justice D e p a r t m e n t says that 8 percent of all American w o m e n will b e victims of rape or a t t e m p t e d rape in their lifetime. The radical feminist legal scholar Catharine MacKinnon, however, claims that "by conservative definition [rape] h a p p e n s to almost half of all w o m e n at least o n c e in their l i v e s . " W h o is right? Feminist activists a n d others have plausibly argued that the relatively l o w figures of the FBI a n d the Bureau of Justice Statistics are n o t trustworthy. T h e FBI survey is based on the n u m b e r of cases reported to the police, b u t r a p e is a m o n g the m o s t u n d e r r e p o r t e d of crimes. The Bureau of Justice Statistics National Crime Survey is based on interviews w i t h 1 0 0 , 0 0 0 r a n d o m l y selected w o m e n . It, too, is said to be flawed because the w o m e n w e r e never directly questioned a b o u t rape. Rape was discussed only if t h e w o m a n h a p p e n e d to bring it u p in the course of answering m o r e general questions a b o u t criminal victimization. The J u s ­ tice D e p a r t m e n t h a s c h a n g e d its m e t h o d of questioning to meet this criticism, so w e will k n o w in a year or two w h e t h e r this has a significant effect o n its n u m b e r s . Clearly, i n d e p e n d e n t studies on the incidence a n d prevalence of r a p e are badly n e e d e d . Unfortunately, research groups in­ vestigating in this area have n o c o m m o n definition of rape, a n d the results so far have led to confusion a n d acrimony. 4

5

Of the rape studies b y n o n g o v e r n m e n t g r o u p s , the two most frequently cited are the 1 9 8 5 Ms. magazine report by Mary Koss a n d the 1992 National W o m e n ' s Study b y Dr. Dean Kilpatrick of the Crime Victims Research a n d T r e a t m e n t Center at the Medical School of South Carolina. In 1 9 8 2 , Mary Koss, t h e n a professor of psychology at Kent State Univer­ sity in O h i o , p u b l i s h e d a n article o n rape in w h i c h she expressed the o r t h o d o x g e n d e r feminist view that "rape represents an extreme behavior b u t one that is on a continuum with normal male behavior within the culture" (my e m p h a s i s ) . S o m e well-placed feminist activists were impressed by her. As Koss tells it, s h e received a p h o n e call out of the blue inviting her to l u n c h w i t h Gloria S t e i n e m . For Koss, the l u n c h was a turning point. Ms. magazine h a d d e c i d e d to d o a national rape survey o n college cam­ p u s e s , a n d Koss w a s c h o s e n to direct it. Koss's findings w o u l d b e c o m e the m o s t frequently cited research o n w o m e n ' s victimization, not so m u c h b y established scholars in the field of rape research as by journalists, politicians, a n d activists. Koss a n d h e r associates interviewed slightly m o r e than three t h o u s a n d college w o m e n , r a n d o m l y selected n a t i o n w i d e . T h e y o u n g w o m e n were asked ten q u e s t i o n s a b o u t sexual violation. These were followed by sev6

7

8

RAPE

211

RESEARCH

eral questions a b o u t the precise n a t u r e of the violation. H a d they b e e n drinking? W h a t w e r e their e m o t i o n s d u r i n g a n d after the event? W h a t forms of resistance did they use? H o w w o u l d they label the event? Koss counted a n y o n e w h o answered affirmatively to any of the last three q u e s ­ tions as having b e e n raped: 8. Have y o u h a d sexual intercourse w h e n you didn't w a n t to because a m a n gave you alcohol or drugs? 9. Have you h a d sexual intercourse w h e n you didn't w a n t to because a m a n threatened or used s o m e degree of physical force (twisting y o u r arm, holding you d o w n , etc.) to m a k e you? 10. Have you h a d sexual acts (anal or oral intercourse or penetration by objects other than the penis) w h e n you didn't w a n t to because a m a n threatened or used s o m e degree of physical force (twisting y o u r a r m , h o l d i n g you d o w n , etc.) to m a k e you? Koss a n d her colleagues c o n c l u d e d that 15.4 p e r c e n t of r e s p o n d e n t s had been raped, a n d that 12.1 p e r c e n t h a d b e e n victims of a t t e m p t e d r a p e . T h u s , a total of 2 7 . 5 p e r c e n t of the r e s p o n d e n t s were d e t e r m i n e d to have b e e n victims of rape or a t t e m p t e d rape because they gave answers that fit Koss's criteria for rape (penetration by penis, finger, or other object u n d e r coercive influence s u c h as physical force, alcohol, or threats). H o w ­ ever, that is n o t h o w the so-called rape victims saw it. O n l y a b o u t a quarter of the w o m e n Koss calls rape victims labeled w h a t h a p p e n e d to t h e m as rape. According to Koss, the answers to the follow-up questions revealed that "only 2 7 percent" of the w o m e n she c o u n t e d as having b e e n raped labeled themselves as rape v i c t i m s . Of the remainder, 4 9 p e r c e n t said it was " m i s c o m m u n i c a t i o n , " 14 p e r c e n t said it was a "crime b u t n o t rape," a n d 11 p e r c e n t said they "don't feel v i c t i m i z e d . " 9

10

11

In line w i t h her view of rape as existing o n a c o n t i n u u m of male sexual aggression, Koss also asked: "Have you given in to sex play (fondling, kissing, or petting, b u t not intercourse) w h e n you didn't w a n t to because you were o v e r w h e l m e d by a m a n ' s continual a r g u m e n t s a n d pressure?" To this question, 5 3 . 7 percent r e s p o n d e d affirmatively, a n d they were counted as having been sexually victimized. The Koss study, released in 1 9 8 8 , b e c a m e k n o w n as the Ms. Report. Here is h o w the Ms. F o u n d a t i o n characterizes the results: "The Ms. p r o j ­ e c t — t h e largest scientific investigation ever u n d e r t a k e n on the s u b j e c t — revealed s o m e disquieting statistics, including this astonishing fact: o n e in four female r e s p o n d e n t s h a d an experience that m e t the legal definition of rape or a t t e m p t e d r a p e . " 12

212

W H O

STOLE

FEMINISM?

" O n e in four" has since b e c o m e the official figure on w o m e n ' s rape victimization cited in w o m e n ' s studies d e p a r t m e n t s , rape crisis centers, w o m e n ' s magazines, a n d o n protest b u t t o n s a n d posters. Susan Faludi defended it in a Newsweek story o n sexual correctness. Naomi Wolf refers to it in The Beauty Myth, calculating that acquaintance rape is "more c o m m o n t h a n lefthandedness, alcoholism, a n d heart a t t a c k s . " " O n e in four" is c h a n t e d in "Take Back the Night" processions, a n d it is the n u m b e r given in the date rape b r o c h u r e s h a n d e d out at freshman orien­ tation at colleges a n d universities a r o u n d the c o u n t r y . Politicians, from Senator J o s e p h Biden of Delaware, a Democrat, to Republican Congress­ m a n J i m Ramstad of Minnesota, cite it regularly, a n d it is the primary reason for the Title IV, "Safe C a m p u s e s for W o m e n " provision of the Violence Against W o m e n Act of 1 9 9 3 , w h i c h provides twenty million dollars to c o m b a t r a p e o n college c a m p u s e s . W h e n Neil Gilbert, a professor at Berkeley's School of Social Welfare, first read the " o n e in four" figure in the school newspaper, he was con­ vinced it could n o t b e accurate. T h e results did not tally with the findings of almost all p r e v i o u s research o n rape. W h e n h e read the study h e was able to see w h e r e the high figures came from a n d w h y Koss's approach was unsound. H e noticed, for e x a m p l e , that Koss a n d her colleagues counted as victims of r a p e a n y r e s p o n d e n t w h o answered "yes" to the question "Have y o u h a d sexual intercourse w h e n you didn't w a n t to because a m a n gave you alcohol or d r u g s ? " T h a t o p e n e d the d o o r wide to regarding as a rape victim a n y o n e w h o regretted her liaison of the previous night. If your date mixes a p i t c h e r of margaritas a n d encourages you to drink with h i m a n d y o u accept a d r i n k , have you b e e n "administered" an intoxicant, a n d has y o u r j u d g m e n t b e e n impaired? Certainly, if you pass out a n d are molested, o n e w o u l d call it rape. But if you d r i n k and, while intoxicated, engage in sex that y o u later c o m e to regret, have you been raped? Koss d o e s n o t a d d r e s s these questions specifically, she merely counts your date as a rapist a n d y o u as a rape statistic if you d r a n k with your date a n d regret having h a d sex w i t h h i m . As Gilbert points out, the question, as Koss p o s e d it, is far too a m b i g u o u s : 13

14

15

16

W h a t d o e s having sex "because" a m a n gives you drugs or alcohol signify? A positive r e s p o n s e d o e s n o t indicate w h e t h e r duress, intox­ ication, force, or the threat of force were present; w h e t h e r the w o m ­ an's j u d g m e n t or control were substantially impaired; or w h e t h e r the m a n purposefully got the w o m a n d r u n k in order to prevent her resistance to sexual advances. . . . W h i l e the item could have been

RAPE

213

RESEARCH

clearly w o r d e d to d e n o t e "intentional incapacitation of the victim," as the question stands it w o u l d require a m i n d reader to detect w h e t h e r any affirmative response c o r r e s p o n d s to this legal définition of r a p e . 17

Koss, however, insisted that her criteria conformed with the legal def­ initions of rape used in s o m e states, a n d she cited in particular the statute on rape of h e r o w n state, O h i o : " N o p e r s o n shall engage in sexual c o n d u c t with a n o t h e r p e r s o n . . . w h e n . . . for the p u r p o s e of preventing resis­ tance the offender substantially impairs the other person's j u d g m e n t or control by administering any d r u g or intoxicant to the other p e r s o n " (Ohio revised code 1980, 2907.01A, 2 9 0 7 . 0 2 ) . Two reporters from the Blade—a small, progressive Toledo, O h i o , n e w s p a p e r that has w o n awards for the excellence of its investigative articles—were also not convinced that the "one in four" figure was accu­ rate. They took a close look at Koss's s t u d y a n d at several others that w e r e being cited to s u p p o r t the alarming tidings of widespread sexual a b u s e on college campuses. In a special three-part series on rape called "The Making of an Epidemic," p u b l i s h e d in O c t o b e r 1992, the reporters, Nara Shoenberg a n d Sam Roe, revealed that Koss was q u o t i n g the O h i o statute in a very misleading way: she h a d s t o p p e d short of m e n t i o n i n g the qual­ ifying clause of the statute, w h i c h specifically excludes "the situation where a p e r s o n plies his i n t e n d e d p a r t n e r w i t h d r i n k or drugs in h o p e s that lowered inhibition might lead to a l i a i s o n . " Koss n o w concedes that question eight was badly w o r d e d . Indeed, she told the Blade reporters, "At the time I viewed the question as legal; I n o w concede that it's a m b i g u o u s . " That concession s h o u l d have b e e n followed by the a d m i s ­ sion that her survey may b e inaccurate by a factor of two: for, as Koss herself told the Blade, once you remove the positive responses to question eight, the finding that one in four college w o m e n is a victim of rape or attempted rape d r o p s to one in n i n e . 18

19

20

21

For Gilbert, the most serious indication that something was basically awry in the Ms./Koss study was that the majority of w o m e n she classified as having b e e n raped did not believe they had been raped. Of those Koss counts as having b e e n raped, only 2 7 percent t h o u g h t they h a d been; 7 3 percent did n o t say that w h a t h a p p e n e d to t h e m was rape. In effect, Koss a n d her followers present us w i t h a picture of confused y o u n g w o m e n overwhelmed by threatening males w h o force their attentions o n t h e m during the course of a date b u t are u n a b l e or unwilling to classify their experience as rape. Does that picture fit the average female u n d e r g r a d u ­ ate? For that matter, does it plausibly apply to the larger c o m m u n i t y ? As

214

W H O

STOLE

FEMINISM?

the journalist C a t h y Young observes, " W o m e n have sex after initial reluc­ tance for a n u m b e r of reasons . . . fear of being beaten u p by their dates is rarely r e p o r t e d as o n e of t h e m . " Katie Roiphe, a g r a d u a t e s t u d e n t in English at Princeton a n d a u t h o r of The Morning After: Sex, Fear, and Feminism on Campus, argues along simi­ lar lines w h e n s h e claims that Koss h a d n o right to reject the j u d g m e n t of the college w o m e n w h o d i d n ' t t h i n k they were raped. But Katha Pollitt of The Nation defends Koss, p o i n t i n g out that in m a n y cases people are w r o n g e d w i t h o u t k n o w i n g it. T h u s w e d o n o t say that "victims of other injustices—fraud, malpractice, j o b d i s c r i m i n a t i o n — h a v e suffered n o w r o n g as long as they are u n a w a r e of the l a w . " Pollitt's analogy is faulty, however. If J a n e has ugly financial dealings w i t h T o m a n d a n expert explains to J a n e that T o m has defrauded her, t h e n J a n e usually t h a n k s the expert for having enlightened her about the legal facts. To m a k e h e r case, Pollitt w o u l d have to s h o w that the rape victims w h o w e r e u n a w a r e that they were raped w o u l d accept Koss's j u d g m e n t that they really were. But that has not been s h o w n ; Koss did n o t enlighten the w o m e n she c o u n t s as rape victims, a n d they did not say " n o w that you explain it, w e can see w e were." Koss a n d Pollitt m a k e a technical (and in fact dubious) legal point: w o m e n are i g n o r a n t a b o u t w h a t c o u n t s as rape. Roiphe makes a straight­ forward h u m a n point: the w o m e n were there, a n d they k n o w best h o w to j u d g e w h a t h a p p e n e d to t h e m . Since w h e n d o feminists consider "law" to override w o m e n ' s experience? Koss also found that 4 2 p e r c e n t of those she counted as rape victims w e n t o n to have sex w i t h their attackers on a later occasion. For victims of a t t e m p t e d rape, the figure for s u b s e q u e n t sex with reported assailants w a s 3 5 percent. Koss is q u i c k to p o i n t out that "it is n o t k n o w n if [the s u b s e q u e n t sex] w a s forced or voluntary" a n d that most of the relation­ ships "did eventually b r e a k u p s u b s e q u e n t to the victimization." But of course, most college relationships break u p eventually for one reason or another. Yet, instead of taking these y o u n g w o m e n at their word, Koss casts a b o u t for explanations of w h y so m a n y "raped" w o m e n w o u l d return to their assailants, implying that they m a y have been coerced. She ends by treating h e r subjects' rejection of her findings as evidence that they were confused a n d sexually naive. There is a m o r e respectful explanation. Since m o s t of those Koss c o u n t s as rape victims did not regard themselves as having b e e n r a p e d , w h y n o t take this fact a n d the fact that so m a n y w e n t b a c k to their p a r t n e r s as reasonable indications that they h a d not b e e n r a p e d to begin with? T h e Toledo reporters calculated that if you eliminate the affirmative 2 2

23

24

RAPE

215

RESEARCH

responses to the alcohol or drugs question, a n d also subtract from Koss's results the w o m e n w h o did n o t think they w e r e raped, her o n e in four figure for rape a n d a t t e m p t e d rape " d r o p s to b e t w e e n o n e in twenty-two a n d o n e in t h i r t y - t h r e e . " The other frequently cited n o n g o v e r n m e n t rape study, the National W o m e n ' s Study, w a s c o n d u c t e d by Dean Kilpatrick. F r o m a n interview sample of 4 , 0 0 8 w o m e n , the s t u d y projected that there were 6 8 3 , 0 0 0 rapes in 1990. As to prevalence, it c o n c l u d e d that "in America, o n e o u t of every eight adult w o m e n , or at least 12.1 million American w o m e n , has been the victim of forcible rape s o m e t i m e in h e r lifetime." Unlike the Koss report, w h i c h tallied rape a t t e m p t s as well as rapes, the Kilpatrick s t u d y focused exclusively o n rape. Interviews were con­ d u c t e d by p h o n e , by female interviewers. A w o m a n w h o agreed to b e ­ c o m e part of the s t u d y heard the following from the interviewer: " W o m e n d o n o t always report s u c h experiences to police or discuss t h e m w i t h family or friends. T h e p e r s o n m a k i n g the advances isn't always a stranger, b u t can be a friend, boyfriend, or even a family m e m b e r . Such experiences can occur anytime in a w o m a n ' s life—even as a c h i l d . " Pointing o u t that she w a n t s to h e a r a b o u t a n y s u c h experiences "regardless of h o w long ago it h a p p e n e d or w h o m a d e the advances," the interviewer p r o ­ ceeds to ask four questions: 25

26

27

1. Has a m a n or b o y ever m a d e you have sex by using force or threat­ ening to h a r m you or s o m e o n e close to you? J u s t so there is n o mistake, by sex w e m e a n p u t t i n g a penis in y o u r vagina. 2. Has a n y o n e ever m a d e you have oral sex by force or threat of h a r m ? J u s t so there is n o mistake, by oral sex we m e a n that a m a n or boy p u t his penis in y o u r m o u t h or s o m e b o d y penetrated y o u r vagina or a n u s with his m o u t h or tongue. 3. Has a n y o n e ever m a d e you have anal sex b y force or threat of h a r m ? 4. Has a n y o n e ever p u t fingers or objects in y o u r vagina or a n u s against y o u r will by using force or threat? Any w o m a n w h o answered yes to any o n e of the four questions w a s classified as a victim of rape. This seems to be a fairly straightforward a n d well-designed survey that provides a w i n d o w into the private h o r r o r that m a n y w o m e n , especially very y o u n g w o m e n , experience. O n e of the m o r e disturbing findings of the survey was that 6 1 percent of the victims said they were seventeen or younger w h e n the rape occurred. There is, however, o n e flaw that affects the significance of Kilpatrick's

216

W H O

STOLE

FEMINISM?

findings. A n affirmative a n s w e r to a n y o n e of the first three questions does reasonably p u t o n e in the category of rape victim. The fourth is p r o b l e m a t i c , for it includes cases in w h i c h a boy penetrated a girl with his finger, against h e r will, in a heavy petting situation. Certainly the boy b e h a v e d badly. But is h e a rapist? Probably neither h e n o r his date w o u l d say so. Yet, the survey classifies h i m as a rapist a n d her as a rape victim. I called Dr. Kilpatrick a n d asked h i m a b o u t the fourth question. "Well," h e said, "if a w o m a n is forcibly penetrated by an object such as a broomstick, w e w o u l d call that rape." "So w o u l d I," I said. "But isn't there a big difference between being violated by a b r o o m s t i c k a n d being violated by a finger?" Dr. Kilpatrick a c k n o w l e d g e d this: " W e s h o u l d have split out fingers versus objects," h e said. Still, h e assured m e that the question did not significantly affect the o u t c o m e . But I w o n d e r e d . T h e s t u d y h a d found an epidemic of rape a m o n g teenagers—just the age g r o u p m o s t likely to get into situations like the o n e I have described. T h e m o r e serious w o r r y is that Kilpatrick's findings, a n d m a n y other findings o n rape, vary wildly unless the r e s p o n d e n t s are explicitly asked w h e t h e r they have b e e n raped. In 1 9 9 3 , Louis Harris a n d Associates did a t e l e p h o n e survey a n d c a m e u p w i t h quite different results. Harris was c o m m i s s i o n e d b y the C o m m o n w e a l t h F u n d to d o a study of w o m e n ' s health. As w e shall see, their high figures o n w o m e n ' s depression a n d psychological a b u s e b y m e n caused a s t i r . But their finding on rape w e n t altogether u n n o t i c e d . A m o n g the questions asked of its r a n d o m sample p o p u l a t i o n of 2 , 5 0 0 w o m e n was, "In the last five years, have you been a victim of a rape or sexual assault?" Two percent of the respondents said yes; 9 8 p e r c e n t said n o . Since a t t e m p t e d rape counts as sexual assault, the c o m b i n e d figures for rape a n d a t t e m p t e d rape w o u l d b e 1.9 million over five years or 3 8 0 , 0 0 0 for a single year. Since there are approximately twice as m a n y a t t e m p t e d rapes as completed rapes, the C o m m o n w e a l t h / Harris figure for c o m p l e t e d rapes w o u l d c o m e to approximately 190,000. T h a t is dramatically lower t h a n Kilpatrick's finding of 6 8 3 , 0 0 0 completed forcible rapes. 28

T h e Harris interviewer also asked a question a b o u t acquaintance a n d marital rape that is w o r d e d very m u c h like Kilpatrick's a n d Koss's: "In the past year, did y o u r p a r t n e r ever try to, or force you to, have sexual relations b y using physical force, s u c h as holding you d o w n , or hitting you, or threatening to hit you, or n o t ? " N o t a single r e s p o n d e n t of the Harris poll's s a m p l e a n s w e r e d yes. H o w to explain the discrepancy? True, w o m e n are often extremely reluctant to talk a b o u t sexual violence that they have experienced. But 2 9

RAPE

217

RESEARCH

the Harris pollsters h a d asked a lot of other a w k w a r d personal questions to w h i c h the w o m e n r e s p o n d e d w i t h candor: 6 p e r c e n t said they h a d considered suicide, 5 p e r c e n t a d m i t t e d to using h a r d drugs, 10 p e r c e n t said they h a d b e e n sexually a b u s e d w h e n they were growing u p . I d o n ' t have the answer, t h o u g h it seems obvious to m e that s u c h w i d e variances should m a k e u s appreciate the difficulty of getting reliable figures o n the risk of rape from the research. That the real risk s h o u l d be k n o w n is obvious. T h e Blade reporters interviewed s t u d e n t s o n their fears a n d found t h e m a n x i o u s a n d bewildered. "It m a k e s a big difference if it's o n e in three or o n e in fifty," said April Groff of the University of Michigan, w h o says she is "very scared." "I'd have to say, honestly, I'd think a b o u t rape a lot less if I k n e w the n u m b e r was o n e in fifty." W h e n the Blade reporters asked Kilpatrick w h y h e h a d n o t asked w o m e n w h e t h e r they h a d b e e n raped, h e told t h e m there h a d b e e n n o time in the thirty-five-minute interview. "That was p r o b a b l y s o m e t h i n g that e n d e d u p o n the cutting-room floor." But Kilpatrick's exclusion of such a question resulted in very m u c h higher figures. W h e n pressed about w h y h e omitted it from a s t u d y for w h i c h h e h a d received a milliondollar federal grant, h e replied, "If people t h i n k that is a key question, let t h e m get their o w n grant a n d d o their o w n s t u d y . " Kilpatrick h a d d o n e an earlier s t u d y in w h i c h r e s p o n d e n t s were ex­ plicitly asked w h e t h e r they h a d been raped. That s t u d y s h o w e d a rela­ tively l o w prevalence of 5 p e r c e n t — o n e in t w e n t y — a n d it got very little p u b l i c i t y . Kilpatrick subsequently a b a n d o n e d his former m e t h o d o l o g y in favor of the Ms./Koss m e t h o d , w h i c h allows the surveyor to decide w h e t h e r a rape occurred. Like Koss, h e used a n e x p a n d e d definition of rape (both include penetration by a finger). Kilpatrick's n e w a p p r o a c h yielded h i m high n u m b e r s (one in eight), a n d citations in major n e w s ­ papers a r o u n d the country. His graphs were r e p r o d u c e d in Time magazine u n d e r the heading, "Unsettling Report on an Epidemic of R a p e . " N o w he shares w i t h Koss the h o n o r of being a principal expert cited by media, politicians, a n d activists. 30

31

32

33

34

There are m a n y researchers w h o s t u d y rape victimization, b u t their relatively low figures generate n o headlines. T h e reporters from the Blade interviewed several scholars w h o s e findings on rape were n o t sensational b u t w h o s e research m e t h o d s were s o u n d a n d were n o t based on contro­ versial definitions. Eugene Kanin, a retired professor of sociology from P u r d u e University a n d a pioneer in the field of acquaintance rape, is upset by the intrusion of politics into the field of inquiry: "This is highly con­ voluted activism rather than social science r e s e a r c h . " Professor Margaret G o r d o n of the University of W a s h i n g t o n did a study in 1 9 8 1 that came 35

218

W H O

STOLE

FEMINISM?

u p w i t h relatively l o w figures for rape (one in fifty). She tells of the negative reaction to h e r findings: "There was s o m e p r e s s u r e — a t least I felt p r e s s u r e — t o have rape b e as prevalent as possible. . . \ I'm a pretty strong feminist, b u t o n e of the things I was fighting was that the really avid feminists w e r e trying to get m e to say that things were worse than they really a r e . " Dr. Linda George of D u k e University also found rela­ tively l o w rates of rape (one in seventeen), even t h o u g h she asked ques­ tions very close to Kilpatrick's. She told the Blade she is concerned that m a n y of h e r colleagues treat the high n u m b e r s as if they are "cast in s t o n e . " Dr. N a o m i Breslau, director of research in the psychiatry de­ p a r t m e n t at the H e n r y F o r d Health Science Center in Detroit, w h o also found l o w n u m b e r s , feels that it is i m p o r t a n t to challenge the p o p u l a r view that higher n u m b e r s are necessarily m o r e accurate. Dr. Breslau sees the n e e d for a n e w a n d m o r e objective p r o g r a m of research: "It's really an o p e n question. . . . W e really d o n ' t k n o w a w h o l e lot a b o u t i t . " 36

37

38

An intrepid few in the a c a d e m y have publicly criticized those w h o have p r o c l a i m e d a "rape crisis" for irresponsibly exaggerating the p r o b l e m a n d causing needless anxiety. Camille Paglia claims that they have been especially hysterical a b o u t date rape: "Date rape has swelled into a cata­ s t r o p h i c cosmic event, like an asteroid threatening the earth in a fifties science-fiction film." She bluntly rejects the contention that " ' N o ' al­ ways m e a n s n o . . . .'No' has always been, a n d always will be, part of the d a n g e r o u s , alluring c o u r t s h i p ritual of sex a n d seduction, observable even in the a n i m a l k i n g d o m . " Paglia's dismissal of date rape h y p e infuriates c a m p u s feminists, for w h o m the r a p e crisis is very real. O n m o s t campuses, date-rape groups h o l d meetings, m a r c h e s , rallies. Victims are "survivors," a n d their friends are "co-survivors" w h o also suffer a n d need c o u n s e l i n g . At s o m e rape awareness meetings, w o m e n w h o have n o t yet been date raped are re­ ferred to as "potential survivors." Their male classmates are "potential rapists." Has date rape in fact reached critical p r o p o r t i o n s o n the college cam­ pus? Having h e a r d a b o u t an o u t b r e a k of rape at Columbia University, Peter H e l l m a n of New York magazine decided to d o a story about i t . To his surprise, h e found that c a m p u s police logs s h o w e d n o evidence of it whatsoever. O n l y t w o rapes w e r e reported to the Columbia c a m p u s police in 1 9 9 0 , a n d in b o t h cases, charges were d r o p p e d for lack of evidence. H e l l m a n c h e c k e d the figures at other c a m p u s e s a n d found that in 1990 fewer t h a n o n e t h o u s a n d rapes were reported to c a m p u s security o n college c a m p u s e s in the entire country.™ That w o r k s out to fewer than onehalf of o n e rape p e r c a m p u s . Yet despite the existence of a rape crisis 39

4 0

41

42

43

RAPE

219

RESEARCH

center at St. Luke's-Roosevelt Hospital two blocks from Columbia Uni­ versity, c a m p u s feminists p r e s s u r e d the administration into installing an expensive rape crisis center inside the university. Peter Hellman describes a typical night at the center in February 1992: " O n a recent Saturday night, a shift of three peer counselors sat in the Rape Crisis C e n t e r — o n e a b a c k u p to the o t h e r two. . . . N o b o d y called; n o b o d y came. As if in a firehouse, the three w o m e n sat alertly a n d waited for disaster to strike. It was easy to forget these were the fading h o u r s of the eve of Valentine's Day." 45

In The Morning After, Katie Roiphe describes the elaborate m e a s u r e s taken to p r e v e n t sexual assaults at Princeton. Blue lights have b e e n in­ stalled a r o u n d the c a m p u s , freshman w o m e n are issued whistles at ori­ entation. There are marches, rape counseling sessions, emergency telephones. But as Roiphe tells it, Princeton is a very safe t o w n , a n d whenever she w a l k e d across a deserted golf course to get to classes, she was m o r e afraid of the wild geese than of a rapist. Roiphe reports that between 1982 a n d 1 9 9 3 only two rapes w e r e reported to the c a m p u s police. And, w h e n it comes to violent attacks in general, male s t u d e n t s are actually m o r e likely to b e the victims. Roiphe sees the c a m p u s rape crisis m o v e m e n t as a p h e n o m e n o n of privilege: these y o u n g w o m e n have h a d it all, a n d w h e n they find o u t that the w o r l d can b e d a n g e r o u s a n d unpredictable, they are outraged:

Many of these girls [in rape marches] came to Princeton from Milton a n d Exeter. Many of their lives have b e e n full of s u m m e r s in N a n ­ tucket a n d horseback-riding lessons. These are w o m e n w h o have g r o w n u p expecting fairness, consideration, a n d p o l i t e n e s s . 46

The Blade story o n rape is u n i q u e in c o n t e m p o r a r y j o u r n a l i s m because the a u t h o r s d a r e d to question the p o p u l a r feminist statistics o n this terri­ bly sensitive p r o b l e m . But to m y m i n d , the i m p o r t a n t a n d intriguing story they tell a b o u t unreliable advocacy statistics is o v e r s h a d o w e d by the even m o r e i m p o r t a n t discoveries they m a d e a b o u t the morally indefensible way that public funds for combatting rape are being allocated. Schoenberg a n d Roe studied Toledo n e i g h b o r h o o d s a n d calculated that w o m e n in the poorer areas w e r e nearly thirty times m o r e likely to b e raped than those in the wealthy areas. They also found that c a m p u s rape rates were thirty times lower t h a n the rape rates for the general p o p u l a t i o n of eighteen- to twenty-four-year-olds in Toledo. T h e attention a n d the m o n e y are dispro­ portionately going to those least at risk. According to the Blade reporters:

220

W H O

STOLE

FEMINISM?

Across the nation, p u b l i c universities are s p e n d i n g millions of dol­ lars a year o n rapidly growing p r o g r a m s to combat rape. Videos, self-defense classes, a n d full-time rape educators are commonplace. . . . But the n e w s p e n d i n g comes at a time w h e n c o m m u n i t y rape p r o g r a m s — a l s o d e p e n d e n t o n tax d o l l a r s — a r e desperately scram­ bling for m o n e y to h e l p p o p u l a t i o n s at m u c h higher risk than col­ lege s t u d e n t s . 47

O n e obvious reason for this inequity is that feminist advocates come largely from the m i d d l e class a n d so exert great pressure to protect their o w n . To r e n d e r their claims plausible, they dramatize themselves as vic­ t i m s — s u r v i v o r s or "potential survivors." Another device is to expand the definition of rape (as Koss a n d Kilpatrick do). Dr. Andrea Parrot, chair of the Cornell University Coalition Advocating Rape Education a n d a u t h o r of Sexual Assault on Campus, begins her date rape prevention m a n u a l with the w o r d s , "Any sexual intercourse w i t h o u t m u t u a l desire is a form of rape. A n y o n e w h o is psychologically or physically pressured into sexual contact o n a n y occasion is as much a victim as the person w h o is attacked in the streets" (my e m p h a s i s ) . By s u c h a definition, privileged y o u n g w o m e n in o u r nation's colleges gain moral parity with the real victims in the c o m m u n i t y at large. Parrot's novel conception of rape also justifies the salaries being p a i d to all the n e w p e r s o n n e l in the burgeoning college date rape industry. After all, it is m u c h m o r e pleasant to deal with rape from a n office in Princeton t h a n o n the streets of d o w n t o w n Trenton. 48

A n o t h e r reason that college w o m e n are getting a lion's share of public resources for c o m b a t t i n g rape is that collegiate money, t h o u g h originally public, is allocated b y college officials. As the Blade points out: Public universities have multi-million dollar b u d g e t s heavily subsi­ dized by state dollars. School officials decide h o w the m o n e y is spent, a n d are eager to a d d r e s s the high-profile issues like rape on c a m p u s . In contrast, rape crisis c e n t e r s — n o n p r o f i t agencies that p r o v i d e free services in the c o m m u n i t y — m u s t appeal directly to federal a n d state g o v e r n m e n t s for m o n e y . 49

Schoenberg a n d Roe describe typical cases of w o m e n in communities a r o u n d the c o u n t r y — i n Madison, Wisconsin, in C o l u m b u s , O h i o , in Austin, Texas, a n d in N e w p o r t , K e n t u c k y — w h o have been raped a n d have to wait m o n t h s for rape counseling services. There were three rapes r e p o r t e d to police at the University of Minnesota in 1992; in N e w York City there w e r e close to three t h o u s a n d . T h e University of Minnesota has

RAPE

RESEARCH

221

a rape crisis h o t line, b u t N e w York City does not. T h e Blade reports that the sponsors of the Violence Against W o m e n Act of 1993 reflect the s a m e unjust priorities. They p o i n t out that "if Senator Biden has his way, campuses will get at least twenty million m o r e dollars for rape education a n d prevention." In the m e a n t i m e , Gail Rawlings of the Pennsylvania Coalition Against Rape complains that the bill guarantees n o t h i n g for basic services, counseling, a n d s u p p o r t g r o u p s for w o m e n in the larger c o m m u n i t y : "It's ridiculous. This bill is s u p p o s e d to encourage p r o s e c u ­ tion of violence against w o m e n , [and] o n e of the m a i n keys is to have s u p p o r t for the victim. . . . I j u s t d o n ' t u n d e r s t a n d w h y [the m o n e y ] isn't there." Because rape is the m o s t u n d e r r e p o r t e d of crimes, the c a m p u s activists tell us w e c a n n o t learn the true d i m e n s i o n s of c a m p u s rape from police logs or hospital reports. But as a n explanation of w h y there are so few k n o w n a n d p r o v e n incidents of rape o n c a m p u s , that w o n ' t d o . U n d e r ­ reporting of sexual crimes is n o t confined to the c a m p u s , a n d wherever there is a high level of reported r a p e — s a y in p o o r u r b a n c o m m u n i t i e s where the funds for combatting rape are almost n o n e x i s t e n t — t h e level of u n d e r r e p o r t e d rape will b e greater still. N o matter h o w you look at it, w o m e n on c a m p u s d o n o t face a n y w h e r e near the s a m e risk of rape as w o m e n elsewhere. T h e fact that college w o m e n c o n t i n u e to get a d i s p r o ­ portionate a n d ever-growing share of the very scarce public resources allocated for rape prevention a n d for aid to rape victims u n d e r s c o r e s h o w disproportionately powerful a n d self-preoccupied the c a m p u s feminists are despite all their v a u n t e d concern for " w o m e n " writ large. 50

O n c e again w e see w h a t a long way the N e w F e m i n i s m has c o m e from Seneca Falls. T h e privileged a n d protected w o m e n w h o l a u n c h e d the w o m e n ' s m o v e m e n t , as Elizabeth Cady Stanton a n d Susan B. A n t h o n y took pains to p o i n t out, did n o t regard themselves as the p r i m a r y victims of gender inequity: "They h a d souls large e n o u g h to feel the w r o n g s of others w i t h o u t being scarified in their o w n flesh." They did n o t act as if they h a d "in their o w n experience e n d u r e d the coarser forms of tyranny resulting from unjust laws, or association w i t h i m m o r a l a n d u n s c r u p u l o u s m e n . " Ms. Stanton a n d Ms. A n t h o n y concentrated their efforts o n the Hester V a u g h n s a n d the other defenseless w o m e n w h o s e n e e d for gender equity was u r g e n t a n d unquestionable. 51

M u c h of the unattractive self-preoccupation a n d victimology that w e find on today's c a m p u s e s have b e e n irresponsibly e n g e n d e r e d by the inflated a n d scarifying "one in four" statistic o n c a m p u s rape. In s o m e

222

WHO

STOLE

FEMINISM?

cases the c a m p a i g n of alarmism arouses exasperation of another kind. In an article in the New York Times Magazine, Katie Roiphe questioned Koss's figures: "If 2 5 p e r c e n t of m y w o m e n friends were really being raped, w o u l d n ' t I k n o w i t ? " She also questioned the feminist perspective on 52

male/female relations: "These feminists are endorsing their o w n Utopian vision of sexual relations: sex w i t h o u t struggle, sex w i t h o u t power, sex w i t h o u t persuasion, sex w i t h o u t pursuit. If verbal coercion constitutes rape, t h e n the w o r d rape itself e x p a n d s to include any k i n d of sex a w o m a n experiences as n e g a t i v e . " 53

T h e publication of Ms. Roiphe's piece incensed the c a m p u s feminists. "The New York Times s h o u l d b e shot," railed Laurie Fink, a professor at Kenyon C o l l e g e . "Don't invite [Katie Roiphe] to your school if you can p r e v e n t it," counseled Pauline Bart of the University of Illinois. Gail Dines, a w o m e n ' s studies professor a n d date rape activist from W h e e l o c k College, called Roiphe a traitor w h o has sold out to the "white male patriarchy." O t h e r critics, s u c h as Camille Paglia a n d Berkeley professor of social welfare Neil Gilbert, have b e e n targeted for demonstrations, boycotts, a n d d e n u n c i a t i o n s . Gilbert began to p u b l i s h his critical analyses of the Ms./ Koss s t u d y in 1 9 9 0 . M a n y feminist activists did n o t look kindly on Gilbert's challenge to their " o n e in four" figure. A date rape clearinghouse in San Francisco devotes itself to "refuting" Gilbert; it sends out masses of literature attacking h i m . It advertises at feminist conferences with green a n d orange fliers bearing the headline STOP IT, BITCH! The w o r d s are not Gilbert's, b u t the tactic is a n effective way of drawing attention to his w o r k . At o n e d e m o n s t r a t i o n against Gilbert o n the Berkeley c a m p u s , s t u d e n t s c h a n t e d , " C u t it o u t or cut it off," a n d carried signs that read, KILL NEIL GILBERT! Sheila Kuehl, the director of the California W o m e n ' s Law Center, confided to readers of the Los Angeles Daily Journal, "I found myself w i s h i n g that Gilbert, himself, m i g h t b e raped a n d . . . be told, to his face, it h a d never h a p p e n e d . " 54

55

56

57

5 8

59

T h e findings b e i n g cited in s u p p o r t of an "epidemic" of c a m p u s rape are the p r o d u c t s of advocacy research. Those p r o m o t i n g the research are bitterly o p p o s e d to seeing it exposed as inaccurate. O n the other h a n d , rape is i n d e e d the m o s t u n d e r r e p o r t e d of crimes. W e need the truth for policy to b e fair a n d effective. If the feminist advocates w o u l d stop m u d ­ dying the waters w e could p r o b a b l y get at it. High rape n u m b e r s serve the g e n d e r feminists by p r o m o t i n g the belief that American culture is sexist a n d misogynist. But the c o m m o n a s s u m p ­ tion that rape is a manifestation of misogyny is o p e n to question. Assume for the sake of a r g u m e n t that Koss a n d Kilpatrick are right a n d that the

RAPE

RESEARCH

223

lower n u m b e r s of the FBI, the Justice D e p a r t m e n t , the Harris poll, of Kilpatrick's earlier study, a n d the m a n y other studies m e n t i o n e d earlier are w r o n g . W o u l d it t h e n follow that w e are a "patriarchal rape culture"? Not necessarily. American society is exceptionally violent, a n d the vio­ lence is n o t specifically patriarchal or misogynist. According to Interna­ tional Crime Rates, a report from the United States D e p a r t m e n t of Justice, "Crimes of violence (homicide, rape, a n d robbery) are four to n i n e times m o r e frequent in the United States than they are in Europe. T h e U.S. crime rate for rape was . . . roughly seven times higher t h a n the average for E u r o p e . " T h e incidence of rape is m a n y times lower in s u c h c o u n ­ tries as Greece, Portugal, or J a p a n — c o u n t r i e s far m o r e overtly patriarchal than ours. It m i g h t b e said that places like Greece, Portugal, a n d J a p a n d o n o t keep good records o n rape. But the fact is that Greece, Portugal, a n d Japan are significantly less violent than w e are. I have walked t h r o u g h the equivalent of Central Park in Kyoto at night. I felt safe, a n d I was safe, not because J a p a n is a feminist society (it is the opposite), b u t because crime is relatively rare. T h e international studies on violence suggest that patriarchy is n o t the p r i m a r y cause of rape b u t that rape, along with other crimes against the person, is caused by whatever it is that m a k e s o u r society a m o n g the m o s t violent of the so-called advanced nations. But the suggestion that criminal violence, n o t patriarchal misogyny, is the p r i m a r y reason for o u r relatively high rate of rape is u n w e l c o m e to gender feminists like Susan Faludi, w h o insist, in the face of all evidence to the contrary, that "the highest rate of rapes appears in cultures that have the highest degree of gender inequality, w h e r e sexes are segregated at work, that have patriarchal religions, that celebrate all-male sporting a n d h u n t i n g rituals, i.e., a society s u c h as u s . " In the spring of 1992, Peter J e n n i n g s hosted an ABC special o n the subject of rape. Catharine MacKinnon, Susan Faludi, N a o m i Wolf, a n d Mary Koss w e r e a m o n g the panelists, along with J o h n Leo of U.S. News & World Report. W h e n MacKinnon trotted o u t the claim that 2 5 p e r c e n t of w o m e n are victims of rape, Mr. Leo replied, "I d o n ' t believe those statistics. . . . That's totally false." MacKinnon countered, "That m e a n s you don't believe w o m e n . It's n o t cooked, it's interviews w i t h w o m e n b y people w h o believed t h e m w h e n they said it. That's the m e t h o d o l o g y . " The accusation that Leo did n o t believe " w o m e n " silenced h i m , as it w a s meant to. But as w e have seen, believing w h a t w o m e n actually say is precisely not the m e t h o d o l o g y by w h i c h s o m e feminist advocates get their incendiary statistics. MacKinnon's next volley was certainly o n target. She p o i n t e d o u t that 60

6 1

62

63

224

W H O

STOLE

FEMINISM?

the statistics she h a d cited "are starting to b e c o m e nationally accepted by the g o v e r n m e n t . " That claim could n o t be gainsaid, a n d MacKinnon may b e p a r d o n e d for crowing a b o u t it. T h e government, like the media, is accepting the g e n d e r feminist claims a n d is introducing legislation whose "whole p u r p o s e . . . is to raise the consciousness of the American p u b ­ l i c . " T h e w o r d s are J o s e p h Biden's, a n d the bill to w h i c h he referred— the Violence Against W o m e n A c t — i n t r o d u c e s the principle that violence against w o m e n is m u c h like racial violence, calling for civil as well as criminal remedies. Like a lynching or a cross b u r n i n g , an act of violence by a m a n against a w o m a n w o u l d be prosecuted as a crime of gender bias, u n d e r title 3 of the bill: "State a n d Federal criminal laws do not adequately protect against the bias element of gender-motivated crimes, w h i c h separates these crimes from acts of r a n d o m violence, n o r d o those laws adequately p r o v i d e victims of gender-motivated crimes the oppor­ tunity to vindicate their i n t e r e s t s . " W h e r e a s ordinary violence is "ran­ d o m , " "violence against w o m e n " m a y be discriminatory in the literal sense in w h i c h w e s p e a k of a bigot as discriminating against s o m e o n e because of race or religion. 64

65

Mary Koss a n d Sarah Buel were invited to give testimony on the subject of violence against w o m e n before the H o u s e Judiciary Committee. Dean Kilpatrick's findings w e r e cited. Neil Gilbert was n o t there; n o r were any of the other scholars interviewed by the Toledo Blade. T h e litigation that the bill invites gladdens the hearts of gender femi­ nists. If w e consider that a b o y getting fresh in the backseat of a car may be p r o s e c u t e d b o t h as an a t t e m p t e d rapist a n d as a gender bigot w h o has violated his date's civil rights, w e can see w h y the title 3 provision is being hailed by radical feminists like Catharine MacKinnon a n d Andrea D w o r k i n . D w o r k i n , w h o w a s surprised a n d delighted at the s u p p o r t the bill w a s getting, candidly observed that the senators "don't u n d e r s t a n d the m e a n i n g of the legislation they p a s s . " Senator Biden invites us to see the bill's potential as an instrument of m o r a l e d u c a t i o n o n a national scale. "I have b e c o m e convinced . . . that violence against w o m e n reflects as m u c h a failure of our nation's collective m o r a l imagination as it does the failure of o u r nation's laws a n d regula­ t i o n s . " Fair e n o u g h , b u t t h e n w h y n o t include crimes against the elderly or children? W h a t constitutional or moral g r o u n d is there for singling out female crime victims for special treatment u n d e r civil rights laws? Can it be that Biden a n d the others are b u y i n g into the gender feminist ontology of a society divided against itself along the fault line of gender? Equity feminists are as u p s e t as a n y o n e else a b o u t the prevalence of violence against w o m e n , b u t they are not possessed of the worldview that 66

67

RAPE

RESEARCH

225

licenses their overzealous sisters to present inflammatory b u t inaccurate data on male abuse. They w a n t social scientists to tell t h e m the objective truth a b o u t the prevalence of rape. A n d because they are n o t c o m m i t t e d to the view that m e n are arrayed against w o m e n , they are able to see violence against w o m e n in the context of w h a t , in o u r country, a p p e a r s to be a general crisis of violence against p e r s o n s . By distinguishing be­ tween acts of r a n d o m violence a n d acts of violence against w o m e n , the sponsors of the Violence Against W o m e n Act believe that they are s h o w ­ ing sensitivity to feminist concerns. In fact, they m a y b e d o i n g social h a r m by accepting a divisive, gender-specific a p p r o a c h to a p r o b l e m that is not caused by g e n d e r bias, misogyny, or " p a t r i a r c h y " — a n a p p r o a c h that can obscure real a n d u r g e n t p r o b l e m s s u c h as lesbian battering or male-on-male sexual v i o l e n c e . According to Stephen D o n a l d s o n , president of Stop Prison Rape, m o r e than 2 9 0 , 0 0 0 male prisoners are assaulted each year. Prison rape, says Donaldson in a New York Times o p i n i o n piece, "is an e n t r e n c h e d tradi­ tion." Donaldson, w h o was himself a victim of prison rape twenty years ago w h e n h e was incarcerated for antiwar activities, has calculated that there m a y be as m a n y as 4 5 , 0 0 0 rapes every day in o u r prison p o p u l a ­ tion of 1.2 million m e n . T h e n u m b e r of rapes is vastly higher t h a n the n u m b e r of victims because the s a m e m e n are often attacked repeatedly. Many of the rapes are "gang b a n g s " repeated day after day. To r e p o r t such a rape is a terribly d a n g e r o u s thing to d o , so these rapes m a y b e the m o s t u n d e r r e p o r t e d of all. N o o n e k n o w s h o w accurate Donaldson's figures are. They seem incredible to m e . But the tragic a n d neglected atrocities h e is concerned a b o u t are n o t the k i n d w h o s e s t u d y attracts grants from the Ford or Ms. foundations. If h e is a n y w h e r e near right, the incidence of male rape w o u l d b e as high or higher t h a n that of female rape. 68

Equity feminists find it reasonable to a p p r o a c h the p r o b l e m of violence against w o m e n b y addressing the root causes of the general rise in vio­ lence a n d the decline in civility. To view rape as a crime of g e n d e r bias (encouraged by a patriarchy that looks w i t h tolerance o n the victimization of w o m e n ) is perversely to miss its true nature. Rape is perpetrated b y criminals, w h i c h is to say, it is perpetrated b y people w h o are w o n t to gratify themselves in criminal ways a n d w h o care very little a b o u t the suffering they inflict o n others. That m o s t violence is male isn't news. But very little of it appears to b e misogynist. This c o u n t r y has m o r e t h a n its share of violent males; statis­ tically w e m u s t expect t h e m to gratify themselves at the expense of p e o p l e weaker than themselves, male or female; a n d so they d o . G e n d e r feminist

226

W H O

STOLE

FEMINISM?

ideologues b e m u s e a n d alarm the public with inflated statistics. And they have m a d e n o case for the claim that violence against w o m e n is s y m p t o m ­ atic of a deeply misogynist culture. Rape is j u s t o n e variety of crime against the person, a n d rape of w o m e n is j u s t o n e subvariety. T h e real challenge we face in o u r society is h o w to reverse the tide of violence. H o w to achieve this is a true challenge to our m o r a l imagination. It is clear that w e m u s t learn m o r e a b o u t w h y so m a n y of o u r male children are so violent. A n d it is clear we m u s t find ways to educate all of o u r children to regard violence with abhorrence a n d con­ tempt. W e m u s t o n c e again teach decency a n d considerateness. And this, too, m u s t b e c o m e clear: in any constructive agenda for the future, the g e n d e r feminist's divisive social p h i l o s o p h y has n o place.

Chapter 11

The Backlash Myth

When regard for truth has been broken down or even slightly weakened, all things will remain

doubtful — S T . AUGUSTINE

A couple of years ago, American publishing was enlivened b y the release of Susan Faludi's Backlash a n d N a o m i W o l f s The Beauty Myth, two impassioned feminist screeds uncovering a n d d e n o u n c i n g the s c h e m e s that have p r e v e n t e d w o m e n from enjoying the fruits of the w o m e n ' s m o v e m e n t . For o u r p u r p o s e s , w h a t these b o o k s have in c o m m o n is m o r e interesting a n d i m p o r t a n t t h a n w h a t distinguishes t h e m . Both r e p o r t e d a widespread conspiracy against w o m e n . In b o t h , the putative conspiracy has the s a m e goal: to prevent today's w o m e n from m a k i n g use of their h a r d - w o n f r e e d o m s — t o p u n i s h t h e m , in other w o r d s , for liberating themselves. As Ms. Wolf informs us: "After the success of the w o m e n ' s movement's s e c o n d wave, the beauty m y t h w a s perfected to c h e c k m a t e p o w e r at every level in individual w o m e n ' s lives." 1

2

Conspiracy theories are always p o p u l a r , b u t in this case the a u t h o r s , writing primarily for middle-class readers, faced a tricky p r o b l e m . N o reasonable p e r s o n in this day a n d age could b e expected to believe that s o m e w h e r e in America a g r o u p of male "elders" has sat d o w n to plot ways to perpetuate the subjugation of w o m e n . H o w , then, could they p e r s u a d e

228

W H O

STOLE

FEMINISM?

a n y o n e of the existence of a widespread effort to control w o m e n for the g o o d of m e n ? T h e solution that they hit u p o n m a d e it possible for t h e m to have their conspiracy while disavowing it. Faludi a n d Wolf argued that the conspir­ acy against w o m e n is being carried out by malevolent b u t invisible back­ lash forces or b e a u t y - m y t h forces that act in purposeful ways. The forces in question are subtle, powerful, a n d insidiously efficient, a n d w o m e n are largely u n c o n s c i o u s of t h e m . W h a t is m o r e , the primary enforcers of the conspiracy are n o t a g r o u p of sequestered males plotting a n d planning their next backlash m a n e u v e r s : it is w o m e n themselves w h o "internalize" the aims of the backlash, w h o , unwittingly, d o its bidding. In other w o r d s , the backlash is Us. Or, as Wolf p u t s it, " m a n y w o m e n internalize Big Brother's e y e . " Faludi's s c o p e is w i d e r t h a n W o l f s ; she argues that the media a n d the political system have b e e n co-opted by the backlash, as well: 3

T h e backlash is n o t a conspiracy, with a council dispatching agents from s o m e central control r o o m , n o r are the people w h o serve its e n d s often aware of their role; s o m e even consider themselves femi­ nists. For the m o s t part, its w o r k i n g s are e n c o d e d a n d internalized, diffuse a n d c h a m e l e o n i c . . . generated by a culture m a c h i n e that is always s c r o u n g i n g for a "fresh" angle. Taken as a whole, however, these codes a n d cajolings, these whispers a n d threats a n d myths, m o v e overwhelmingly in o n e direction: they try to p u s h w o m e n back into their "acceptable" roles. 4

Wolf focuses m o r e narrowly o n the "beauty backlash," w h i c h pressures w o m e n to diet, dress u p , m a k e u p , a n d w o r k out in ways that are "de­ stroying w o m e n physically a n d depleting us psychologically": "The b e a u t y backlash against feminism is n o conspiracy, b u t a million separate individual reflexes . . . that coalesce into a national m o o d weighing w o m e n d o w n ; the backlash is all the m o r e oppressive because the source of the suffocation is so diffuse as to be almost invisible." Having t h u s skirted a claim of outright conspiracy, Faludi a n d Wolf nevertheless freely use the language of subterfuge to arouse anger a n d bitterness. In their systems, the backlash a n d the beauty m y t h become malevolent personified forces b e h i n d plot after plot against w o m e n . T h e y incite u n s c r u p u l o u s stooges in the media to write articles that m a k e "single a n d childless w o m e n feel like circus freaks." Cosmetics saleswomen are backlash agents, "trained," Wolf says, "with techniques akin to those used by professional cult converters a n d hypnotists." She 5

6

THE

BACKLASH

229

MYTH

calls W e i g h t W a t c h e r s a "cult" a n d c o m p a r e s its disciplines to those of the Unification C h u r c h , Scientology, est, a n d Lifespring. In aerobics classes, "robotic" w o m e n d o the "same b o u n c i n g d a n c e . . . practiced by the Hare Krishnas for the s a m e effect." W h a t the backlash "wants" is clear to b o t h Faludi a n d Wolf. By the seventies, w o m e n h a d b e e n granted a great deal of equality. T h e p r i m a r y aim of the backlash is to retake lost g r o u n d , to p u t w o m e n to r o u t . T h e subtitle of Faludi's b o o k is The Undeclared War Against American Women. Backlash itself m a y b e regarded as a feminist counterattack in this s u p posed war. As Patricia Schroeder n o t e d in a review of the b o o k , w o m e n are n o t "riled u p e n o u g h , " a n d Faludi "may b e able to d o w h a t political activists have tried to d o for y e a r s . " Indeed, she a n d Wolf together succeeded in m o v i n g countless w o m e n to anger a n d dismay. W h e r e did Faludi a n d Wolf get the idea that masses of seemingly free w o m e n w e r e being mysteriously m a n i p u l a t e d from within? A look at their source of inspiration illustrates the w o r k i n g s of a law of intellectual fashion that the journalist Paul Berman calls "Parisian d e t e r m i n i s m " — t h a t is, whatever is the rage in Paris will b e fashionable in America fifteen years later. Michel Foucault, a professor of p h i l o s o p h y at the distinguished Collège de France a n d an irreverent social thinker w h o felt deeply alienated from the society in w h i c h h e lived, i n t r o d u c e d his theory of interior disciplines in 1975. His b o o k Discipline and Punish, with its novel explanation of h o w large g r o u p s of p e o p l e could b e controlled w i t h o u t the n e e d of exterior controllers, took intellectual Paris by storm. Foucault h a d little love for the m o d e r n democratic state. Like Marx, h e was interested in the forces that keep citizens of democracies law-abiding a n d obedient. According to Foucault, the individual subjects of c o n t e m p o r a r y d e mocracies are n o t free at all. Instead, democratic societies t u r n o u t to b e even m o r e rigidly authoritarian t h a n the tyrannies they replaced. M o d e r n citizens find themselves subject to the rules (he calls t h e m "disciplines") of m o d e r n bureaucratic institutions: schools, factories, hospitals, the military, the prisons. In p r e m o d e r n societies, w h e r e p o w e r was overtly authoritarian, enforcement was inconsistent, h a p h a z a r d , a n d inefficient: the king's m i n i o n s could n o t b e everywhere all the time. In c o n t e m p o r a r y societies, control is pervasive a n d unceasing: the m o d e r n citizen, having internalized the disciplines of the institutions, polices himself. This results in a "disciplinary society" of "docile" subjects w h o k e e p themselves in line with w h a t is expected. According to the p h i l o s o p h e r Richard Rorty, Foucault believed h e w a s exposing "a vast organization of repression a n d injustice." He regarded the m u l t i t u d e of self-disciplined individuals as 7

8

9

10

11

230

W H O

STOLE

FEMINISM?

constituting a "microfascism" that is even m o r e efficiently constraining t h a n the macrofascism of totalitarian states. H o w seriously can o n e take Foucault's theory? N o t very, says Princeton political p h i l o s o p h e r Michael Walzer, w h o characterizes Foucault's poli­ tics as "infantile leftism." Foucault was aware that h e was equating m o d e r n democracies w i t h repressively brutal systems like the Soviet prison c a m p s in the Gulag. In a 1 9 7 7 interview, h e s h o w e d s o m e concern a b o u t h o w his ideas m i g h t b e interpreted: "I a m indeed worried by a certain use . . . w h i c h consists in saying, 'Everyone has their o w n Gulag, the Gulag is h e r e at o u r door, in o u r cities, o u r hospitals, o u r prisons, it's h e r e in o u r h e a d s . ' " But, as Walzer points out, so long as Foucault rejected the possibility of individual freedom, w h i c h is the moral basis for liberal democracy, it w a s unclear h o w h e could sustain the distinction b e t w e e n the real Gulag a n d the o n e inside the heads of bourgeois citizens. Foucault's theory has few a d h e r e n t s a m o n g social philosophers, b u t it is nonetheless highly p o p u l a r a m o n g gender feminist theorists, w h o find his critique of liberal d e m o c r a c y useful for their purposes. Foucault has given t h e m an all-purpose w e a p o n to b e used against traditional-minded feminists. Equity feminists believe that American w o m e n have m a d e great prog­ ress a n d that o u r system of g o v e r n m e n t allows t h e m to expect more. They d o n o t believe that w o m e n are "socially subordinate." By contrast, the g e n d e r feminists believe that m o d e r n w o m e n are still in thrall to patriar­ chy, a n d Foucault helps t h e m to m a k e their case. W h e n equity feminists p o i n t to the gains m a d e b y w o m e n in recent decades, gender feminists consider t h e m naive. Applying Foucault, they insist that male p o w e r remains all-pervasive, only n o w it has b e c o m e "interiorized" a n d therefore even m o r e efficient; force is n o longer necessary. In effect, they have a d o p t e d Foucault's "discourses" to argue that "femininity" itself is really a discipline that c o n t i n u e s to degrade a n d oppress w o m e n , even those in the so-called free democracies. As Sandra Lee Bartky p u t s it: 12

1 3

N o o n e is m a r c h e d off for electrolysis at the e n d of a rifle. . . . Nevertheless . . . the disciplinary practices of femininity . . . m u s t b e u n d e r s t o o d as aspects of a far larger discipline, an oppressive a n d inegalitarian system of sexual subordination. This system aims at t u r n i n g w o m e n into the docile a n d compliant c o m p a n i o n s of m e n j u s t as surely as the a r m y aims to t u r n its raw recruits into soldiers. 14

For Bartky, c o n t e m p o r a r y American w o m e n live in a k i n d of sexual prison, subject to disciplines that ordain m u c h of their daily lives:

THE

BACKLASH

MYTH

231

The w o m a n w h o checks her m a k e - u p half a d o z e n times a day to see if her foundation has caked or her mascara r u n , w h o worries that the w i n d or rain m a y spoil h e r h a i r d o , w h o looks frequently to see if her stockings have bagged at the ankle, or w h o , feeling fat, m o n i t o r s everything she eats, has b e c o m e , j u s t as surely as the inmate [ u n d e r constant surveillance], a self-policing subject, a self c o m m i t t e d to a relentless self-surveillance. This self-surveillance is a form of obedience to patriarchy [my e m p h a s i s ] . 15

Catharine MacKinnon presents h e r o w n , sexier version of h o w c o n t e m ­ porary w o m e n have "interiorized" a self-destructive, self-sustaining, d e ­ spairing, craven identity that serves m e n very well a n d c o n t i n u e s to humiliate w o m e n : Sexual desire in w o m e n , at least in this culture, is socially con­ structed as that by w h i c h w e c o m e to w a n t o u r o w n self-annihila­ tion; that is, o u r s u b o r d i n a t i o n is eroticized; . . . w e get off o n it, to a degree. This is o u r stake in this system that is n o t in o u r interest, our stake in this system that is killing us. I'm saying that femininity as w e k n o w it is h o w w e c o m e to w a n t male d o m i n a n c e , w h i c h most emphatically is n o t in o u r interest. 16

MacKinnon rejects "femininity as w e k n o w it" because it has c o m e to m e a n accepting a n d even desiring male d o m i n a t i o n . Her militant, g y n o ­ centric feminism w o u l d teach w o m e n to see h o w deeply, craftily, a n d deceptively the male culture has socialized t h e m to compliance: "Male d o m i n a n c e is p e r h a p s the m o s t pervasive a n d tenacious system of p o w e r in history. . . . Its force is exercised as consent, its authority as participa­ tion." It w o u l d b e a mistake to t h i n k that the idea of a tenacious internalized p o w e r that is k e e p i n g w o m e n subjugated is on the fringe of the N e w Feminism a n d n o t at its center. To m o s t feminist leaders, the backlash is very real. It w a s the t h e m e of a 1 9 9 2 conference I a t t e n d e d at Radcliffe College called "In the Eye of the Storm: Feminist Research a n d Action in the 90s." O n e of the p u r p o s e s of the conference was to "explore the b a c k l a s h — a g a i n s t the w o m e n ' s m o v e m e n t , against w o m e n ' s research, w o m e n ' s studies . . . a n d against p u b l i c policy equity agendas." T h e con­ ference was s p o n s o r e d by the prestigious National Council for Research on W o m e n — a n umbrella organization that represents m o r e t h a n seventy w o m e n ' s g r o u p s , including the Wellesley College Center for Research o n W o m e n a n d the American Association of University W o m e n . Expenses 17

232

W H O

STOLE

FEMINISM?

were covered by the F o r d F o u n d a t i o n . T h o u g h the conference featured extremists like Charlotte B u n c h ( w h o referred to Dan Quayle as a Klansm a n ) , it also h a d N a n n e r l Keohane, n o w president of D u k e University, w h o s e e m e d n o t to b e d i s t u r b e d b y all the backlash rhetoric. T h e a s s u m p t i o n that w o m e n m u s t defend themselves against an enemy w h o is waging a n u n d e c l a r e d w a r against t h e m has by n o w achieved the status of conventional feminist w i s d o m . In large part, this has h a p p e n e d because seemingly reasonable a n d highly placed feminists like Ms. Keo­ h a n e have n o t seen fit to challenge it. W h e t h e r they have been silent because they agree or because they have found it politic to refrain from criticism, I d o n o t k n o w . Foucault p r o m u l g a t e d his doctrine of self-surveillance in the midseventies. By the mideighties, it h a d t u r n e d u p in the b o o k s of feminist theorists; b y the nineties, it h a d b e c o m e thematic in feminist best-sellers. Wolf m e n t i o n s Foucault in her bibliography. Faludi offers h i m n o ac­ k n o w l e d g m e n t , b u t h e r characterization of the backlash bespeaks his influence: T h e lack of orchestration, the absence of a single string-puller, only m a k e s it h a r d e r to s e e — a n d p e r h a p s m o r e effective. A backlash against w o m e n ' s rights succeeds to the degree that it appears not to b e political, that it a p p e a r s n o t to b e a struggle at all. It is most powerful w h e n it goes private, w h e n it lodges inside a w o m a n ' s m i n d a n d t u r n s h e r vision inward, until she imagines the pressure is all in h e r h e a d , until she begins to enforce the backlash t o o — o n herself. 18

Wolf a n d Faludi t e n d to p o r t r a y the "disciplined" a n d docile w o m e n in the grip of the backlash as Stepford wives—helpless, possessed, a n d robotic. Wolf s o m e t i m e s speaks of w o m e n as victims of "mass hypnosis." "This is n o t a conspiracy theory," she r e m i n d s us. "It doesn't have to be." Faludi explains h o w the backlash managed to "infiltrate the t h o u g h t s of w o m e n , broadcasting o n these private channels its s o u n d ­ waves of s h a m e a n d r e p r o a c h . " 1 9

20

In a d d i t i o n to F o u c a u l d i a n theory, Faludi a n d Wolf have appropriated masses of statistics a n d studies that "consistently s h o w " the workings of the backlash a n d the b e a u t y m y t h a n d their effects o n American w o m e n . But a l t h o u g h their b o o k s are massively footnoted, reliable statistical evi­ d e n c e for the backlash hypothesis is in terribly short supply. According

THE

BACKLASH

233

MYTH

to Wolf, "Recent research consistently s h o w s that inside the majority of the West's controlled, attractive, successful w o r k i n g w o m e n , there is a secret 'underlife' p o i s o n i n g o u r freedom; infused w i t h n o t i o n s of beauty, it is a dark vein of self-hatred, physical obsessions, terror of aging, a n d dread of lost c o n t r o l . " T h e research she cites was d o n e in 1 9 8 3 at O l d D o m i n i o n University. She claims that the researchers found that attractive w o m e n " c o m p a r e themselves only to m o d e l s , n o t to other w o m e n , " a n d feel unattractive. This k i n d of claim is central to W o l f s contention that images of beautiful, willowy w o m e n in fashion magazines demoralize real w o m e n . In fact, the s t u d y she cited suggested the opposite. T h e Old D o m i n i o n researchers c o m p a r e d the self-reports of three g r o u p s of college-age w o m e n : one g r o u p evaluated themselves after looking at p h o ­ tos of fashion m o d e l s , a n o t h e r g r o u p after looking at pictures of u n a t t r a c ­ tive peers, a n d a third g r o u p after looking at pictures of very attractive peers. T h e researchers were careful n o t to exaggerate the significance of this small experiment, b u t they (tentatively) c o n c l u d e d that a l t h o u g h reactions to attractive peers negatively influenced w o m e n ' s self-evaluation, exposure to the m o d e l s h a d n o s u c h effect: 21

Perhaps in the eyes of m o s t of o u r subjects, peer beauty qualified as a m o r e a p p r o p r i a t e s t a n d a r d for social comparison t h a n professional beauty. . . . Viewed in a practical sense, o u r results further suggest that t h u m b i n g t h r o u g h p o p u l a r magazines filled w i t h beautiful m o d e l s m a y have little immediate effect o n the self-images of m o s t women. 22

I called the principal a u t h o r of the study, T h o m a s Cash, a psychologist at O l d D o m i n i o n , a n d asked h i m w h a t h e t h o u g h t a b o u t Ms. W o l f s use of his research. "It h a d n o t h i n g to d o w i t h w h a t w e found. It m a d e n o sense. W h a t I reported was j u s t the opposite of w h a t Wolf claimed. . . . She grabbed it, r a n with it, a n d got it b a c k w a r d . " W e have already discussed h e r sensational disclosure that the beauty backlash is w r e a k i n g havoc with y o u n g w o m e n by leading t h e m into a lethal epidemic of anorexia w i t h a n n u a l fatalities of 1 5 0 , 0 0 0 . T h e actual fatalities a p p e a r to be considerably fewer than 100 p e r year. M u c h of the s u p p o r t Wolf brings for her b e a u t y - m y t h theory consists of merely labeling an activity insidious rather than s h o w i n g it to be s o — exercising, dieting, a n d b u y i n g Lancôme p r o d u c t s at the cosmetics counter in Bloomingdale's all c o m e u n d e r attack. Characterizing W e i g h t Watchers as a cult does n o t constitute evidence that it is one. In her zeal 23

234

W H O

STOLE

FEMINISM?

to c o n s t r u e every effort of American w o m e n to lose weight as a s y m p t o m of a m a l e - i n d u c e d anxiety, she overlooks the fact that m a n y p e o p l e — m e n as well as w o m e n — s u f f e r from obesity a n d are threatened by dis­ eases that d o n o t affect p e o p l e w h o are fit. Stressing the importance of diet a n d fitness can hardly b e considered as an insidious attempt by the male establishment to d i s e m p o w e r w o m e n . T h e desire to achieve greater fitness is p e r h a p s the m a i n motive inspiring b o t h m e n a n d w o m e n to exercise a n d to m o n i t o r their diets. Wolf recycled results from every alarmist-advocacy study she could get h e r h a n d s o n . Mary Koss's results o n date rape are duly reported: " O n e in four w o m e n r e s p o n d e n t s h a d an experience that m e t the American legal definition of r a p e or a t t e m p t e d r a p e . " She does not m e n t i o n that Koss's definition of r a p e w a s controversial. She does not tell us that almost half the w o m e n Koss classified as victims dated their "rapists" again. Wolf d o e s s o m e t i m e s p o i n t to real p r o b l e m s , s u c h as the overwhelming fear of being " u n f e m i n i n e , " the excessive rate of cosmetic surgery, a n d the high incidence of d o m e s t i c violence. But she errs in systematically ascribing t h e m to the s a m e misogynist cause. G o o d social theorists are painfully aware of the complexity of the p h e n o m e n a they seek to explain, a n d h o n e s t researchers t e n d to b e suspicious of single-factor explanations, n o matter h o w beguiling. Faludi's a p p r o a c h is that of the m u c k r a k i n g reporter b e n t on saving w o m e n b y exposing the lies, half-truths, a n d deceits that the maleoriented m e d i a have created to demoralize w o m e n a n d keep t h e m out of the workplace. H e r readers m i g h t naturally assume that she herself has taken care to b e truthful. However, n o t a few astonished reviewers dis­ covered that Backlash relies for its impact on m a n y u n t r u t h s — s o m e far m o r e serious t h a n a n y it exposes. In her New York Times review, the journalist a n d feminist Ellen G o o d m a n gently chastised Faludi for over­ looking evidence that d i d n o t fit her puzzle. But G o o d m a n ' s tone was so e n t h u s i a s t i c — s h e praised the b o o k for its "sharp style" a n d thorough­ n e s s — t h a t few h e e d e d h e r criticisms. W i t h i n weeks Backlash j u m p e d to the t o p of the best-seller lists, b e c o m i n g the hottest feminist b o o k in decades. Faludi w a s in d e m a n d — o n the lecture circuit, o n talk shows, in b o o k stores, a n d in print. T h e m o r e serious criticism came a few m o n t h s later. In a letter to the New York Times Book Review, Barbara Lovenheim, a u t h o r of Beating the Marriage Odds, reported that she h a d looked into s o m e of Faludi's major claims a n d found t h e m to b e erroneous. Her letter p r e s e n t e d s o m e egregious examples a n d c o n c l u d e d that Faludi "skews data, m i s q u o t e s p r i m a r y sources, a n d m a k e s serious errors of o m i s s i o n . " 24

25

26

THE

BACKLASH

MYTH

235

Although Lovenheim is a respected a n d responsible journalist, the review editors of the Times have a policy of fact-checking controversial material, a n d they asked Lovenheim to provide detailed proof that her criticisms of Faludi were well-grounded. She complied, a n d the Times devoted half a page to the publication of Lovenheim's letter. Here is a p o r t i o n of Lovenheim's a r g u m e n t a n d findings. Faludi h a d written: " W o m e n u n d e r thirty-five n o w give birth to chil­ dren w i t h D o w n s y n d r o m e at a higher rate than w o m e n over thirtyfive." T h a t claim fits well w i t h Faludi's central thesis that the backlash is particularly aimed at professionally successful single w o m e n . By p r o p ­ agating false reports that w o m e n over thirty-five are at a higher risk of bearing a child w i t h birth defects, the backlash seeks to discourage w o m e n a n d to h a r m their careers by causing t h e m to w o r r y a b o u t their decision to delay childbirth. But, says Ms. Lovenheim, the deplorable t r u t h is that age sharply in­ creases a w o m a n ' s chance of having a b a b y w i t h D o w n s y n d r o m e . T h e chances are o n e in 1,000 u n d e r age twenty-five, o n e in 4 0 0 at thirty-five, one in 100 at forty, a n d o n e in 3 5 at forty-four. Lovenheim p o i n t s o u t that, in m a k i n g h e r false claim, Faludi misrepresents her o w n source, Working Woman (August 1990). For Working Woman h a d w a r n e d its readers that a variety of abnormalities are associated w i t h maternal age, a m o n g t h e m that older w o m e n "are m o r e likely to conceive fetuses w i t h c h r o m o s o m a l defects s u c h as D o w n s y n d r o m e . " O n e of Faludi's m o r e sensational c l a i m s — i t o p e n s her b o o k — i s that there is a concerted effort u n d e r way to demoralize successful w o m e n by spooking t h e m a b o u t a m a n shortage. Faludi denies that there is a short­ age, b u t Lovenheim s h o w s that the facts d o n o t s u p p o r t her. T h o u g h there is n o m a n shortage for w o m e n in their twenties a n d early thirties, things change by the time w o m e n reach their m i d thirties. T h e census data indicate that b e t w e e n the ages of thirty-five a n d forty-four, there are 8 4 single m e n for every 100 w o m e n . T h e r e are as m a n y as o n e million m o r e single w o m e n t h a n single m e n b e t w e e n ages thirty-five a n d fiftyfour. Lovenheim p o i n t s out that Faludi m a d e it look otherwise by leaving out all divorced a n d w i d o w e d singles. Faludi r e s p o n d e d to Lovenheim's letter two weeks later. She said she "welcomed" a t t e m p t s to correct " m i n o r inaccuracies." But she could n o t "help w o n d e r i n g at the possible motives of the letter writer, w h o is the a u t h o r of a b o o k called Beating the Marriage Odds." She m a d e an a t t e m p t to explain her bizarre claim that older w o m e n have a lower incidence of Down's births. T h e claim was poorly w o r d e d , she conceded: she really m e a n t to say that since w o m e n over thirty-five t e n d to be screened for 27

28

29

3 0

236

W H O

STOLE

FEMINISM?

birth defects, m a n y a b o r t their defective fetuses, lowering their rate of live births to babies w i t h this abnormality. She neglected to a d d that this concession u n d e r c u t s h e r larger a r g u m e n t . After Lovenheim's letter was p u b l i s h e d , reviewers in several journals began to t u r n u p o t h e r serious errors in Faludi's arguments. She h a d cited, for example, a 1986 article in Fortune magazine reporting that m a n y successful w o m e n w e r e finding d e m a n d i n g careers unsatisfying a n d were "bailing o u t " to a c c o m m o d a t e marriage a n d children. According to Fa­ ludi, "The Fortune story left a n especially d e e p a n d troubled impression o n y o u n g w o m e n aspiring to business a n d m a n a g e m e n t careers. . . . The year after Fortune l a u n c h e d the 'bailing out' trend, the p r o p o r t i o n of w o m e n applying to business schools s u d d e n l y began to s h r i n k — f o r the first time in a d e c a d e . " In a review, G r e t c h e n M o r g e n s o n of Forbes magazine called this thesis "interesting b u t w r o n g . " She wrote, "There was n o shrinkage following the Fortune story. According to the American Assembly of Collegiate Schools of Business, w h i c h reports o n business school graduates, the p r o p o r t i o n of w o m e n graduates increased every year from 1967 t h r o u g h 1 9 8 9 , the m o s t recent figures a v a i l a b l e . " M o r g e n s o n also deflated Faludi's claim that in the eighties, " w o m e n w e r e p o u r i n g into m a n y low-paid female w o r k ghettos." United States Bureau of Labor statistics, s h e p o i n t e d out, s h o w that "the percentage of w o m e n executives, administrators, a n d managers a m o n g all managers in the American w o r k force has risen from 3 2 . 4 percent in 1983 to 4 1 p e r c e n t in 1 9 9 1 . " M o r g e n s o n j u d g e d Faludi's b o o k "a labyrinth of n o n ­ sense followed b y eighty pages of f o o t n o t e s . " Time magazine, w h i c h w a s p r e p a r i n g an article on Faludi, found other glaring inconsistencies, primarily in Faludi's economic reckonings, w h i c h a p p a r e n t l y led t h e m to modify the ebullient tone of their story with the a d m o n i t i o n that Faludi "rightly slams journalists w h o distort data in order to p r o m o t e w h a t they view as a larger truth; b u t in a n u m b e r of instances, she can b e a c c u s e d of the s a m e t a c t i c s . " Time reporter Nancy Gibbs looked into s o m e of Faludi's complaints a b o u t the way the media have dealt w i t h the e c o n o m i c effects of divorce on w o m e n : 31

32

33

Faludi d e m o n s t r a t e s that the studies o n the impact of divorce greatly exaggerate the fall in the average w o m a n ' s living standard in the year after she leaves h e r h u s b a n d . But she a d d s that five years after divorce, m o s t w o m e n ' s s t a n d a r d of living has actually improved. She relegates to a footnote the fact that this is because m o s t have remarried. 34

THE

BACKLASH

MYTH

237

Faludi is especially critical of a n y o n e in the media w h o finds fault w i t h current day-care arrangements. She treats a 1984 Newsweek story as a diatribe against day care that glorifies w o m e n w h o give u p careers to raise their kids. But Cathy Young, the reviewer from Reason magazine, p o i n t s out that Faludi carefully refrained from m e n t i o n i n g that the a u t h o r of the article called for quality day care a n d considered it to be "a basic family n e e d . " To m a k e her general case for a media backlash, Faludi assidu­ ously collected m e d i a stories that question the joys of single life or the w i s d o m of a m o t h e r with small children choosing to w o r k . Young o b ­ served that Faludi n o w h e r e m e n t i o n s the n u m e r o u s articles that encourage w o m e n in these choices, n o r those that celebrate "the n e w fatherhood, the benefits for girls of having w o r k i n g m o t h e r s , w o m e n in business a n d nontraditional j o b s . " T h r o u g h o u t her long b o o k , Faludi gives the clear impression that the slant of coverage in major n e w s p a p e r s a n d magazines is distinctly antifeminist. According to Ms. Young, the opposite is true. In a review for Working Woman magazine, Carol Pogash finds that Faludi "misconstrues statistics to suit her view that American w o m e n are n o longer very anxious to w e d . " Faludi interprets a 1990 Virginia Slims poll as finding that w o m e n placed the quest for a h u s b a n d w a y at the b o t t o m of their list of concerns. "Perhaps," says Ms. Pogash, "that's be­ cause 6 2 p e r c e n t of the w o m e n in the s a m p l e were already married, a fact [Faludi] doesn't m e n t i o n . " Ms. Pogash notes that Faludi also misstated the results of a n o t h e r Virginia Slims poll as s h o w i n g that "70 p e r c e n t of w o m e n believed they could have a ' h a p p y a n d complete life' w i t h o u t a w e d d i n g ring." In fact the question was, "Do you think it is possible for a w o m a n to have a complete a n d h a p p y life if she is single?"—not w h e t h e r the r e s p o n d e n t herself could b e h a p p y as a single w o m a n . 35

3 6

37

Faludi talks a b o u t "the wages of the backlash," a n d her m o s t insistent theme is that w o m e n are being severely p u n i s h e d economically for the social a n d civic progress they h a d m a d e prior to the eighties. H o w a feminist reacts to data a b o u t g e n d e r gaps in salaries a n d e c o n o m i c o p p o r ­ tunities is an excellent indication of the k i n d of feminist she is. In general, the equity feminist p o i n t s with p r i d e to the m a n y gains w o m e n have m a d e toward achieving parity in the workplace. By contrast, the g e n d e r feminist m a k e s it a p o i n t to disparage these gains a n d to speak of back­ lash. It disturbs her that the p u b l i c m a y b e lulled into t h i n k i n g that w o m e n are d o i n g well a n d that m e n are allowing it. T h e g e n d e r feminist insists that a n y so-called progress is illusory. I felt the force of this insistence two years ago w h e n m y stepson, Tamler, was a j u n i o r at the University of Pennsylvania. H e h a d written a term p a p e r o n Jane Eyre in w h i c h h e m a d e the "insensitive" observation

238

W H O

STOLE

FEMINISM?

that vocational o p p o r t u n i t i e s for w o m e n are wider today than they were for J a n e Eyre. " N o ! " w r o t e his instructor in the margin. "Even today w o m e n only m a k e 5 9 p e r c e n t of w h a t m e n make!" (I was later to see this professor o n o n e of the panels at the Heilbrun conference.) The next semester, in a n o t h e r course a n d for a n o t h e r English professor, Tamler "erred" again b y saying of o n e female character that she h a d a m o r e satisfying j o b t h a n h e r h u s b a n d did. Again, his teacher expressed her irritation in the margin: " H o w w o u l d you rationalize w o m e n earning 4 9 p e r c e n t of m e n ' s salaries in all fields?" As m o n i t o r e d by Pennsylvania's English d e p a r t m e n t , the condition of w o m e n seemed to have grown ap­ preciably w o r s e in less t h a n a year! W e have all seen these angry figures. But there is n o t m u c h truth in t h e m . By m o s t m e a s u r e s , t h e eighties were a time of rather spectacular gains b y A m e r i c a n w o m e n — i n education, in wages, a n d in s u c h tradi­ tionally male professions as business, law, a n d medicine. The gender feminist will have n o n e of this. According to Susan Faludi, the eighties w e r e the backlash decade, in w h i c h m e n successfully retracted m a n y of the gains w r e s t e d from t h e m in p r e c e d i n g decades. This view, inconven­ iently, d o e s n o t s q u a r e w i t h the facts. Since a n y criticism of Faludi's claim of a wages backlash is apt to be c o n s t r u e d as j u s t m o r e backlashing, o n e m u s t b e grateful to the editors of the New York Times business section for braving the w r a t h of feminist ideologues b y p r e s e n t i n g a n objective a c c o u n t of the economic picture as it affects w o m e n . Surveying several reports by w o m e n economists on w o m e n ' s gains in the 1980s, New York Times business writer Sylvia Nasar rejected Faludi's thesis. She p o i n t e d to masses of empirical data showing that "Far from losing g r o u n d , w o m e n gained m o r e in the 1980s than in the entire p o s t w a r era before that. A n d almost as m u c h as between 1890 and 1980." T o d a y m o r e t h a n ever, e c o n o m i c position is a function of education. In 1 9 7 0 , 4 1 p e r c e n t of college s t u d e n t s were w o m e n ; in 1979, 50 percent w e r e w o m e n ; a n d in 1 9 9 2 , 5 5 p e r c e n t were w o m e n . In 1970, 5 percent of law degrees w e r e g r a n t e d to w o m e n . In 1989, the figure was 4 1 per­ cent; b y 1 9 9 1 it w a s 4 3 percent, a n d it has since gone u p . In 1970, w o m e n e a r n e d 8 p e r c e n t of medical degrees. This rose to 3 3 percent in 1989; by 1 9 9 1 it was 3 6 percent. T h e giant strides in education are reflected in accelerated progress in the professions a n d business. Diane Ravitch, a fellow at the Brookings Institution, reports that w o m e n have m a d e great a d v a n c e m e n t s toward full equality in every professional field, a n d "in s o m e , s u c h as p h a r m a c y a n d veterinary medicine, w o m e n have 3 8

THE

BACKLASH

MYTH

239

become the majority in w h a t was previously a m a l e - d o m i n a t e d profes­ sion." The New York Times article s u m m a r i z e d the research as follows: 39

A fresh b o d y of r e s e a r c h — m o s t l y by a n e w generation of female economists w h o ' v e m i n e d a m o u n t a i n of u n e x p l o r e d d a t a — s h o w s compellingly that w o m e n w e r e big e c o n o m i c w i n n e r s in the 1980s expansion a n d that their gains are likely to keep c o m i n g in the 1990s regardless of w h o is in the W h i t e H o u s e . . . . Conventional w i s d o m — e n s h r i n e d in the best-selling b o o k Backlash: The Unde­ clared War Against American Women, a m o n g other p l a c e s — h a s it that w o m e n m a d e n o progress in the past decade. In fact, w o m e n were s t u c k earning a r o u n d 6 0 cents to the m e n ' s dollar from 1960 t h r o u g h 1980, b u t started catching u p fast as the e c o n o m y e x p a n d e d during the 1 9 8 0 s . 40

The Times reports that the p r o p o r t i o n w o m e n earn of each dollar of men's wages rose to a record 72 cents by 1990. But the Times p o i n t s o u t that even this figure is misleadingly pessimistic, because it includes older w o m e n w h o are only marginally in the w o r k force, s u c h as "the m o t h e r w h o graduated from high school, left the w o r k force at twenty a n d re­ turned to a m i n i m u m wage at a local store." Younger w o m e n , says the Times, " n o w earn 8 0 cents for every dollar earned by m e n of the s a m e age, u p from 6 9 cents in 1980." It m i g h t b e s u p p o s e d that it was n o t so m u c h that w o m e n did well b u t that m e n did poorly in the recent recession. However, Baruch College economics professor J u n e O'Neill, director of the Center for Study of Business a n d G o v e r n m e n t , s h o w e d that even in areas w h e r e m e n did well, w o m e n did better: "At the u p p e r end, w h e r e m e n did very well, w o m e n w e n t t h r o u g h the roof." According to Francine Blau, a University of Illinois economist cited in the Times story, the eighties were years in which "everything started to c o m e together for w o m e n . " N o n e of these facts has m a d e the slightest impression o n the backlash mongerers. For years, feminist activists have b e e n wearing b u t t o n s claim­ ing w o m e n earn " 5 9 cents to a m a n ' s dollar." Some journalists have questioned this figure: Faludi calls t h e m " s p o k e s m e n " for the b a c k l a s h . According to Faludi, "By 1 9 8 8 , w o m e n w i t h a college diploma could still wear the famous 59-cent b u t t o n s . They were still m a k i n g 5 9 cents to their male counterpart's dollar. In fact, the p a y gap for t h e m was n o w a bit worse than five years earlier." 41

42

240

W H O

STOLE

FEMINISM?

T h e sources Faludi cites d o n o t sustain her figure. The actual figure for 1 9 8 8 is 6 8 cents, b o t h for all w o m e n a n d for w o m e n with a college d i p l o m a . This is substantially higher, n o t lower, than it was five years earlier. T h e m o s t recent figures, for 1992, are considerably higher yet, the highest they have ever been: 7 1 cents for all w o m e n a n d 7 3 cents for w o m e n w i t h a college d i p l o m a . T h e figure of 5 9 cents m a y b e a useful rallying cry for gender feminist activists, b u t like m a n y s u c h slogans it is highly misleading a n d n o w egregiously o u t of date. T h e following diagram shows the dramatic rise of the female-to-male, y e a r - r o u n d , full-time earnings ratio, from a b o u t 59 cents t h r o u g h o u t the 1970s to 7 1 cents in 1 9 9 2 . 43

44

Female-to-Male YRFT Earnings Ratio 75 -|

70 -

65 -

60 -

55 -

50

I

1965

I

I

I

I

J

1970

I

I—I—r—]—I—I—I—|—I—|—i—i—i—i—I

1975

1980

1985

I

l

I

I

I

1990

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports, Series P-60.

Evidently t h e 5 9 c e n t figure is chosen for its p r o p a g a n d a value rather t h a n for t r u e insights into a n y remaining discrimination. W h a t of the r e m a i n i n g g a p b e t w e e n male a n d female earnings? For the g e n d e r feminists, the a n s w e r is simple: the wage gap is the result of discrimination against w o m e n . But in fact, serious economics scholars w h o are trained to interpret these data (including m a n y e m i n e n t female economists) p o i n t o u t that m o s t of the differences in earnings reflect such prosaic matters as s h o r t e r w o r k weeks a n d lesser workplace experience. For example, the average w o r k w e e k for full-time, year-round females is

THE

BACKLASH

241

MYTH

shorter than for males. W h e n economists c o m p a r e m e n ' s a n d w o m e n ' s hourly earnings instead of their yearly earnings, the wage gap n a r r o w s even m o r e . Economists differ o n exactly h o w m u c h , if any, of the remaining gap is discrimination. Most economists agree that m u c h of it simply represents the fact that, o n average, w o m e n have accrued less workplace experience than m e n of the s a m e age. O n e recent scholarly estimate s h o w s that as of 1987, females w h o were currently w o r k i n g full-time a n d y e a r - r o u n d h a d , on average, one-quarter fewer years of w o r k experience t h a n c o m p a r a b l e m a l e s . Moreover, a year of average female w o r k experience generally represents fewer h o u r s t h a n a year of average male w o r k experience, because of w o m e n ' s shorter average w o r k week. The experience gap is particularly i m p o r t a n t in explaining the earnings gap b e t w e e n older w o m e n a n d m e n , w h i c h is considerably w i d e r t h a n that for y o u n g e r w o r k e r s (67 cents for ages fifty-five t h r o u g h sixty-four vs. 8 2 cents for ages twenty-five t h r o u g h thirty-four). For older w o m e n , the experience gap is wider than one-quarter, a n d a d d s u p over time to a sizable gap in years of experience a n d an even w i d e r gap in h o u r s of experience. These data are i m p o r t a n t in u n d e r s t a n d i n g the oft-cited claim of a "glass ceiling" for w o m e n . P r o m o t i o n in h i g h - p o w e r e d professional j o b s often goes to those w h o have p u t in long h o u r s in evenings a n d o n w e e k e n d s . H u s b a n d s m a y b e m o r e likely to d o so t h a n wives, for a variety of reasons, including u n e q u a l division of responsibilities at h o m e , in w h i c h case the source of the difficulty is at h o m e , n o t in the m a r k e t ­ place. Obviously, the experience gap also reflects the fact that m a n y w o m e n choose to m o v e into a n d o u t of the w o r k force d u r i n g childbearing a n d child-rearing years. This reduces the a m o u n t of experience they acquire in the workplace a n d naturally results in lower earnings, quite apart from any possible discrimination. Some evidence of this is p r o v i d e d by data o n childless w o r k e r s , for w h o m the experience gap s h o u l d be m u c h nar­ rower, resulting in a narrower earnings gap. This, in fact, is the case: the female-to-male ratio of hourly earnings for childless white workers aged twenty to forty-four was 8 6 - 9 1 percent, as of 1 9 8 7 . The b o t t o m line is that although economists still differ o n h o w m u c h discrimination remains, virtually all of t h e m w o u l d agree that the 5 9 cent figure is highly misleading. For example, J u n e O'Neill finds that "differ­ ences in earnings attributable solely to g e n d e r are likely to b e m u c h smaller than is c o m m o n l y believed, p r o b a b l y less t h a n 10 p e r c e n t . " This contrasts rather starkly with the 4 1 p e r c e n t figure claimed by Faludi. 45

46

47

48

49

242

W H O

STOLE

FEMINISM?

This is n o t to say that there is n o r o o m for improvement. An obvious case in p o i n t is the m o d e r n university's failure to adjust its tenure system to the g r o w i n g n u m b e r of females entering academic careers. Since all n e w professors are r e q u i r e d to "publish or perish" in the first six years of their career, the t e n u r e clock ticks away at exactly the same rate as y o u n g w o m e n ' s biological c l o c k s . Adjustments are called for since this state of affairs seriously affects equality of o p p o r t u n i t y . It is i m p o r t a n t to note, however, that t h e slow a d j u s t m e n t of the universities to changed circum­ stances is at least in p a r t because they are public or nonprofit institutions that are s o m e w h a t insulated from the market. The private sector, argu­ ably, has b e e n m o r e creative w i t h respect to flextime, on-site day care, a n d h o m e office o p t i o n s , a n d is likely to evolve further, out of economic imperative, rather t h a n t h r o u g h the k i n d of g o v e r n m e n t intrusion favored by m a n y of the g e n d e r w a r r i o r s . T h e generally sober e c o n o m i c s profession has a few of its o w n gender feminists, too. O n e of its m o r e p r o m i n e n t e x p o n e n t s is American Univer­ sity's professor of e c o n o m i c s Barbara Bergmann, w h o claims "widespread, severe, o n g o i n g discrimination by employers a n d fellow w o r k e r s . " Pro­ fessor B e r g m a n n recently surprised s o m e of her fellow feminist (and n o n feminist) e c o n o m i s t s b y o p p o s i n g a long-standing proposal to include the value of n o n m a r k e t activity, s u c h as h o u s e w o r k a n d child care, in the official gross d o m e s t i c p r o d u c t figures. Her reason was revealing: "Part of the motive [of the proposal] is to lend s o m e dignity to the position of housewives. W h a t I t h i n k feminism is a b o u t is getting w o m e n off of the housewife t r a c k . " Professor Bergmann has p r o p o s e d that all candidates for office in t h e A m e r i c a n E c o n o m i c Association b e questioned regarding "their m e m b e r s h i p s in feminist a n d antifeminist o r g a n i z a t i o n s . " She did n o t specify w h i c h "antifeminist" m e m b e r s h i p s she was targeting, b u t the t o n e of h e r p r o p o s a l is particularly disturbing because she h a d re­ cently served as p r e s i d e n t of the American Association of University Pro­ fessors. 50

51

52

53

54

As Ms. Nasar r e m i n d s u s , w o m e n have n o t yet achieved parity. Never­ theless, the glass is at least three-quarters full a n d getting fuller. Someone o u g h t to inform the University of Pennsylvania English d e p a r t m e n t a b o u t t h i s — a n d , m o r e crucially, the m a n y Backlash readers w h o m a y have been discouraged b y misleading statistics.

According to Faludi a n d Wolf, there are three kinds of w o m e n to consider. T h e majority are naifs w h o are in one way or another p a w n s of the patriarchy that s h a p e s their m i n d s a n d desires. The sophisticated

THE

BACKLASH

243

MYTH

minority of aware w o m e n can be divided into two classes: those w h o have not sold o u t to the patriarchy a n d those w h o have. N o t surprisingly, Faludi places herself in the first g r o u p , while those w h o disagree w i t h t h e m are consigned to the second. Faludi includes in their n u m b e r s u c h dedicated feminists as Betty Friedan, Germaine Greer, Sylvia Hewlett, Erica J o n g , a n d Susan Brownmiller. Friedan, w h o has criticized radical feminists for "wallowing" in victimh o o d a n d w h o even dared to suggest that feminists were w r o n g to slight Girl Scout leaders a n d J u n i o r League m e m b e r s , is accused of using N e w Right rhetoric a n d of being part a n d parcel of its "profamily" agenda. But the question is n o t w h y Betty Friedan m a y b e w r o n g b u t w h y she is, in Faludi's w o r d s , "stomping o n a m o v e m e n t that she did so m u c h to create a n d lead." Faludi's "explanation" is that Friedan is having "the tan­ t r u m s of a fallen leader w h o is clearly distressed a n d angry that she wasn't allowed to be the Alpha wolf as long as she w o u l d have l i k e d . " According to Faludi, Friedan's pettiness r e n d e r e d her susceptible to treason. Sylvia A n n Hewlett is a former Barnard professor of economics w h o is k n o w n for her w o r k o n family-policy issues. She h a d w o r k e d h a r d in the seventies canvassing for the Equal Rights A m e n d m e n t . H e r s h o c k a n d dismay at its defeat m o v e d her to ask, in her b o o k A Lesser Life: The Myth of Women's Liberation in America, " W h y did women fail to give the ERA the s u p p o r t necessary for victory?" The conclusions she reached p u t her high o n Faludi's backlash black­ list. "In a p r o f o u n d way," Hewlett writes, "feminists have failed to connect with the n e e d s a n d aspirations of ordinary American w o m e n . " Accord­ ing to Hewlett, the ERA did n o t pass because of a widespread defection of w o m e n w h o n o longer felt well represented by the feminist leaders w h o advocated its passage. "It is sobering to realize that the ERA was defeated n o t by Barry Goldwater, Jerry Falwell, or any c o m b i n a t i o n of male chauvinist pigs, b u t by w o m e n w h o were alienated from a feminist m o v e m e n t the values of w h i c h s e e m e d elitist a n d disconnected from the lives of ordinary p e o p l e . " Faludi is, of course, c o m m i t t e d to the view that w o m e n as well as m e n are participating in a n d abetting the backlash. So Hewlett's contentions are in that sense n o t u n w e l c o m e to Faludi: b o t h agree that w o m e n n o less than m e n are responsible for the defeat of the ERA. But whereas Hewlett ascribes w o m e n ' s opposition to the ERA to their alienation from the w o m e n ' s m o v e m e n t d u e to its lack of s y m p a t h y for "ordinary w o m e n , " Faludi insists o n seeing it as a direct effect of the backlash that isolated a n d discredited the leaders of the w o m e n ' s m o v e m e n t . For Faludi, there 55

5 6

57

244

W H O

STOLE

FEMINISM?

is n o w a y to explain t h e p h e n o m e n o n b u t to pity the masses of w o m e n w h o d i d n o t s u p p o r t t h e ERA as craven, frightened victims of the back­ lash. A n d since Hewlett c a n n o t conceivably b e so cavalierly dismissed, she m u s t b e a n agent of t h e backlash itself. Faludi avails herself of a classic t e c h n i q u e for dealing w i t h sophisticated o p p o n e n t s : accuse t h e m of having sold o u t to t h e e n e m y . She slyly informs the reader that Hewlett lives at a "fashionable M a n h a t t a n a d d r e s s " a n d is a m e m b e r of an estab­ l i s h m e n t t h i n k tank. She m e n t i o n s that publishers vied for Hewlett's b o o k w h e n they found it w a s critical of feminism a n d insinuates that she makes lots of m o n e y as a n a u t h o r i t y o n family policy, citing a black-tie dinner Hewlett s p o n s o r e d o n Capitol Hill. In short, she implies, Hewlett is an o p p o r t u n i s t w i t h a substantial p e c u n i a r y interest in holding a n d p r o m o t ­ ing the o p i n i o n s s h e e x p r e s s e s . Faludi deals w i t h G e r m a i n e Greer, Susan Brownmiller, a n d Erica J o n g in m u c h t h e s a m e way. J u s t as Friedan is described as having a "tantrum," Greer a n d Brownmiller are said to b e "revisionists" a n d " r e c a n t e r s . " As for Ms. J o n g , Faludi informs u s that h e r s u p p o r t for feminism "had ac­ tually always b e e n rather e q u i v o c a l . " But the plain truth is that Faludi has p a i n t e d herself into a position that allows n o r o o m for criticism. 58

59

60

Wolf d o e s n o t have Faludi's brassy t e m p e r a m e n t . She prefers to say that h e r critics are m i s g u i d e d a n d to forgive them, for they k n o w n o t w h a t they d o . After seeing Wolf interviewed o n " 2 0 / 2 0 , " Barbara Walters called h e r theory of t h e b e a u t y m y t h "a crock." Wolf took this as addi­ tional evidence of h o w deeply the m y t h is e m b e d d e d in the m i n d s of seemingly free w o m e n : even Ms. Walters has been bodysnatched. Wolf a d m i t s s h e finds it troubling w h e n w o m e n d e n y their o w n oppression. But, s h e explains, "Those initial impulses of denial are understandable: People m o s t n e e d t h e m e c h a n i s m of denial w h e n a n intolerable situation has b e e n p o i n t e d o u t to t h e m . " However, the fact that m o s t w o m e n reject the divisive radical feminism she has b e e n p r o m o t i n g a p p e a r s finally to have impressed Ms. Wolf, w h o s e n e w b o o k , Fire with Fire, t r u m p e t s a shift from w h a t she calls "victim feminism" to a n e w " p o w e r feminism." W o l f s p o w e r feminism t u r n s o u t to b e a version of t h e classically liberal mainstream feminism w i t h t h e a d d i t i o n of s o m e c o n t e m p o r a r y "feel good" themes. To the dismay of m a n y w h o a d m i r e d the heated claims of her first book, Wolf n o w s e e m s to regard American w o m e n as individuals w h o m u s t be en­ couraged to take charge of their lives rather than w h i n e a b o u t mass h y p n o s i s a n d male conspiracies. T h e victim feminism w h o s e able spokes­ p e r s o n s h e h a d h i t h e r t o b e e n s h e n o w regards as "obsolete": "It n o longer m a t c h e s u p w i t h w h a t w o m e n see h a p p e n i n g in their lives. And, if fern6 1

62

THE

BACKLASH

245

MYTH

inism, locked for years in the siege mentality that once was necessary, fails to see this change, it m a y fail to embrace this n e w era's o p p o r t u n i ­ ties." T h e n e w Wolf calls for a feminism that "is tolerant a b o u t other w o m ­ en's choices a b o u t equality a n d a p p e a r a n c e , " a feminism that "does n o t attack m e n o n the basis of gender," o n e that " k n o w s that m a k i n g social change does n o t contradict the principle that girls j u s t w a n t to have fun." W h e n I read this, I felt like calling Ms. Wolf to tell her, "All is for­ given!" But I p r o b a b l y w o u l d have been u n a b l e to refrain from a d d i n g , "Well, almost all: was the siege mentality to w h i c h you so cleverly .con­ tributed in The Beauty Myth really necessary?" In the e n d I'm inclined to chalk u p her earlier extremism to the effective indoctrination she got in w o m e n ' s studies at Yale. Her former allies are n o t so forgiving. After all, it was only j u s t yester­ day that they h a d been cheering W o l f s descriptions of h o w w o m e n are in mass hypnosis a n d in thrall to the m e n w h o exploit them. O n the academic feminist e-mail n e t w o r k , one n o w sees Wolf reviled a n d at­ tacked. A typical reaction comes from e-mailer Suzanna Walters, a soci­ ology professor at Georgetown University: " W o l f s b o o k is trash a n d backlash a n d everything nasty (including h o m o p h o b i c a n d r a c i s t ) . " Get used to this, Ms. Wolf. You'll s o o n b e finding out h o w it feels to be called antifeminist simply because you refuse to regard m e n as the enemy a n d w o m e n as their hapless victims. You speak of "the principle that girls j u s t w a n t to have fun." That will d o u b l y offend y o u r erstwhile sisters in a r m s . First, they prefer all female Americans above the age of fourteen to b e referred to as " w o m e n . " Second, they find the idea that w o m e n w a n t to have fun, frivolous a n d retrograde. You'll b e m o n i t o r e d for m o r e s u c h breaches of doctrine. And, in particular, Susan Faludi will n o w classify y o u as j u s t a n o t h e r backlasher. Barbara Walters h a d found N a o m i W o l f s b e a u t y - m y t h thesis a b o u t the secret misery of professional w o m e n offensive a n d absurd. Kathleen Gilles Seidel, a best-selling writer a n d avid reader of r o m a n c e novels, was of­ fended by American University feminist scholar Kay Mussell's analysis of w o m e n w h o enjoy reading r o m a n c e novels. Ms. Mussell describes ro­ m a n c e readers as u n h a p p y w o m e n seeking to escape from their o w n "powerlessness, from meaninglessness, a n d from lack of self-esteem a n d i d e n t i t y . " Seidel finds that arrogantly w r o n g : 63

64

65

66

I a m a r o m a n c e reader, a n d I strongly object to a n y o n e describing m y life in those terms. I have m y m o m e n t s of dissatisfaction, of

246

W H O

STOLE

FEMINISM?

course, b u t I have p o w e r a n d m e a n i n g , I d o not lack self-esteem or identity. G r a n t e d n o t all w o m e n have living r o o m w i n d o w treat­ m e n t s that they like as m u c h as I like m i n e , or a m o t h e r such as m i n e or w o r k that they feel a b o u t as I feel a b o u t mine, b u t I d o t h i n k it is possible for w o m e n to find contentment, fulfillment, peace, a n d h a p p i n e s s w i t h i n o u r culture, a n d I believe that a great m a n y of t h e m are d o i n g a g o o d j o b of i t . 67

It isn't h a r d to imagine h o w the feminist Foucauldians w o u l d go a b o u t explaining Ms. Seidel's e n t h u s i a s m for her w i n d o w t r e a t m e n t s — o r her s a n g u i n e view a b o u t the lives of other American w o m e n . For t h e m it is a tenet of faith that the life of w o m e n u n d e r patriarchy is one of quiet desperation. But w h e n asked, the majority of w o m e n seem to agree with Ms. Seidel. Occasionally a s t u d y designed to d o c u m e n t the woes of American w o m e n inadvertently t u r n s u p data that suggest most American w o m e n are enjoying life. A n interesting case in p o i n t is the already-mentioned s t u d y o n w o m e n ' s ills c o m m i s s i o n e d by the C o m m o n w e a l t h F u n d in 1992 a n d carried o u t by Louis Harris a n d Associates. T h e Harris pollsters asked a series of questions of a r a n d o m sample of 2 , 5 0 0 w o m e n a n d 1,000 m e n a b o u t their physical a n d mental wellb e i n g . W h e n a s k e d h o w they h a d felt in the past week, the respondents a n s w e r e d as follows: 68

SOME O F

MOST O F

NEVER

RARELY

THE TIME

THE TIME

1. I felt depressed.

Men: Women:

48 36

25 29

22 29

5 5

2. My sleep w a s restless.

Men: Women:

40 29

21 22

28 36

11 12

3 . I enjoyed life.

Men: Women:

1 1

2 2

13 15

83 82

4. I h a d crying spells.

Men: Women:

88 63

6 19

5 16

—

5. I felt sad.

Men: Women:

41 33

29 27

28 35

2 4

6. I felt that people disliked m e .

Men: Women:

61 61

22 22

14 14

2 2

2

THE

BACKLASH

247

MYTH

A large majority of w o m e n (82 percent) claimed they "enjoyed life most of the time." T h e same small p r o p o r t i o n (5 p e r c e n t of m e n a n d w o m e n ) said they h a d been depressed m o s t of that week. That a lot of American w o m e n are enjoying life m a y n o t be newsworthy. But here is the astonishing w a y the C o m m o n w e a l t h F u n d a n d Harris a n d Associates s u m m a r i z e d the results of the questionnaire in their press release: "Survey results indicate that depression a n d low self-esteem are pervasive p r o b ­ lems for American w o m e n . Forty p e r c e n t of the w o m e n surveyed report being severely depressed in the past week, c o m p a r e d w i t h 26 p e r c e n t of men." This conclusion was s o m e h o w arrived at by the w a y the Harris poll interpreted the responses to the six questions. T h e survey's report repre­ sented this result g r a p h i c a l l y : 6 9

70

Women and Depression Younger Women Are More Depressed than Older Women

Total Women

18-44

45-64

65 and Older

Age * Derived from ranking responses to six statements regarding symptoms of depression.

H u m p h r e y Taylor, president of Louis Harris a n d Associates, an­ n o u n c e d at the n e w s conference that the results o n w o m e n ' s depression surprised h i m the m o s t . He said that the survey can "accurately be projected to the American female p o p u l a t i o n [of 94.6 million]. This is far a n d away the m o s t comprehensive survey ever d o n e o n w o m e n ' s health." 71

72

248

W H O

STOLE

FEMINISM?

Following the press conference a n d the n e w s release on July 14, 1 9 9 3 , the bleak n e w s a b o u t the m e n t a l condition of American w o m e n w e n t out over the Reuters n e w s wire u n d e r the headline SURVEY SHOWS 4 O F 10 W O M E N DEPRESSED:

• A survey called the m o s t comprehensive ever d o n e on w o m e n ' s health h a s found a large n u m b e r — 4 o u t of 10—suffered "severe depression." . . . T h e s t u d y w a s called "important" by U.S. Health a n d H u m a n Services Secretary D o n n a Shalala w h o attended the [press] conference. "For too long health care [and] health research has b e e n a d d r e s s e d from o n e p o i n t of view, the white male point of view." 73

T h e next d a y these stories a p p e a r e d in n e w s stories a r o u n d the coun­ try: • 4 in ten w o m e n polled suffer severe depression. (Orange County Register) • 4 o u t of 10 w o m e n depressed, survey finds. (Baltimore Sun) • In a given w e e k , 4 0 p e r c e n t of w o m e n , c o m p a r e d to 26 percent of m e n , experienced "severe depression." (Seattle Post-Intelligencer) • 4 0 p e r c e n t of w o m e n c o m p a r e d to 26 percent of m e n experienced "severe d e p r e s s i o n " in the previous week. (Newark Star-Ledger) • Study: 4 0 p e r c e n t of w o m e n feel severe depression. (Boston Herald) • T h e Harris poll c o n d u c t e d for the N e w York-based charitable orga­ nization [the C o m m o n w e a l t h F u n d ] . . . found 4 0 percent of the w o m e n h a d suffered severe depression recently. (WCBS-AM newsradio, N e w Y o r k ) 7 4

These n e w s p a p e r s a n d radio station were relying on Reuters, a n d Reu­ ters h a d relied o n a special "Survey Highlights" p r e p a r e d by the C o m ­ m o n w e a l t h F u n d . N o o n e seems to have looked at the actual survey results. But I did, a n d I was u n a b l e to fathom h o w those w h o interpreted t h e m could possibly have c o m e u p w i t h the finding a b o u t w o m e n ' s depression. I called the C o m m o n w e a l t h F u n d a n d was p u t t h r o u g h to Mary J o h n ­ son, the s a m e polite p r o g r a m assistant I h a d s p o k e n to w h e n I questioned the inclusion of h e a t e d exchanges a n d insults between couples as in­ stances of "psychological a b u s e " of w o m e n . This time I asked her h o w they h a d arrived at the statistic that 4 0 percent of w o m e n were severely depressed. W h a t a b o u t the 8 2 p e r c e n t of w o m e n w h o said they enjoyed

THE

BACKLASH

MYTH

249

life m o s t of the time? " W e pulled out certain findings that seemed sur­ prising," Ms. J o h n s o n r e s p o n d e d . " W e are n o t saying they are clinically depressed." I told her that "severe depression" certainly s o u n d e d like the real thing —after all, this was a w o m e n ' s health survey. I asked h e r again w h y the report p a i d n o attention to the strong positive responses suggesting that most w o m e n were, overall, fairly h a p p y . Ms. J o h n s o n assured m e again that the 4 0 p e r c e n t figure was reliable, the p r o d u c t of a diagnostic m e t h o d that h a d b e e n developed by the Center for Epidemiologic Studies (CES) a n d a d a p t e d by a team of "consultants" w h o h a d r e d u c e d the CES ques­ tionnaire from twenty questions to six. I asked her for m o r e details. She told m e she h a d n o t been a r o u n d w h e n the survey was developed a n d p u t m e o n to her supervisor, Evelyn Walz, a p r o g r a m coordinator, w h o suggested that I address any further questions to the Harris poll. I called Harris a n d Associates a n d reached Liz Cooner, a vice president, w h o told m e that a Lois Hoeffler h a d b e e n in charge of the w o m e n ' s health survey b u t h a d since left to a t t e n d graduate school in sociology. Ms. Cooner offered to answer m y questions in her stead. I asked her h o w the Harris p e o p l e h a d c o m e u p with 4 0 p e r c e n t of w o m e n severely depressed a n d told her that the responses suggested the opposite. She immediately r e b u k e d m e for using the t e r m "severe depres­ sion." She said that was strong language a n d inappropriate for the find­ ings. W h e n I told h e r that I was only q u o t i n g the report, she said, "I have not seen it reported as 'severe depression.' " I referred her to page 3 of the report, a n d to the "Highlights" a n d the graph. She agreed that if the report h a d indeed used the term "severe depression," it was inappropriate. She said she did n o t k n o w w h a t I n e e d e d the information for, b u t since I h a d so m a n y questions a b o u t the validity of the conclusions, I s h o u l d p r o b a ­ bly "just n o t reference it" in whatever I was writing. I r e m i n d e d her of all the journalists w h o h a d already "referenced it," not to m e n t i o n D o n n a Shalala. Since s h e herself agreed that the an­ n o u n c e d finding was incorrect, I asked her w h e t h e r she m i g h t n o w wish to disassociate the Harris poll from this claim. She said she was in n o position to d o that, b u t I was free to write to H u m p h r e y Taylor a n d ask h i m to reconsider. It seemed to m e , however, that having b e e n apprised of their error, Harris a n d Associates s h o u l d n o w be taking the initiative in correcting it a n d m a k i n g the correction public, n o t m e . There was, moreover, a n o t h e r section of the Harris questionnaire, w h i c h never m a d e it into the charts or n e w s p a p e r stories. T h e 2 , 5 0 0 w o m e n a n d 1,000 m e n were asked: "All things considered, h o w satisfied are you with y o u r life these days?" Here are the percentage results:

250

W H O

STOLE

FEMINISM?

MEN

WOMEN

55 38 4 2 1

very satisfied s o m e w h a t satisfied n o t very satisfied n o t satisfied at all

54 40 4 2 1

not sure

If w e project from these responses, w e s h o u l d conclude that 9 4 percent of w o m e n (and 9 3 p e r c e n t of m e n ) are at least s o m e w h a t content with their lives, a finding that h a r d l y squares with the headline-grabbing figure of 4 0 p e r c e n t severely depressed. Indeed, other polls, surveys, a n d studies suggest high levels of satisfaction a m o n g American w o m e n a n d m e n . The Gallup poll organization periodically takes a "Satisfaction with U.S. Per­ sonal Life" survey in w h i c h it asks, "In general, are you satisfied or dissatisfied w i t h the w a y things are going in y o u r o w n personal life?" In March of 1 9 9 2 , 7 8 p e r c e n t of w o m e n a n d 8 0 percent of m e n r e s p o n d e d that they w e r e satisfied. In 1 9 9 3 , the San Francisco Chronicle did a survey o n the life satisfaction of "baby b o o m e r s " (ages thirty t h r o u g h forty-seven) living in the Bay area a n d found that "baby b o o m e r w o m e n are happier a n d m o r e sexually satisfied t h a n b o o m e r m e n . " 75

7 6

It is p r o b a b l y impossible to get accurate figures on something as a m ­ b i g u o u s as life satisfaction. Depression, o n the other h a n d , is a fairly welldefined disorder. If the guidelines a n d definitions laid d o w n by the Amer­ ican Psychiatric Association are followed, there are several questions pollsters c o u l d ask that w o u l d give t h e m a fairly good idea of the preva­ lence of depression. H e r e are two used by the American Psychiatric As­ sociation (in c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h several others): • Have you b e e n in a depressed m o o d most of the day, nearly every day? • Do you have a m a r k e d l y d i m i n i s h e d interest or pleasure in all, or almost all, activities m o s t of the day, nearly every d a y ? 7 7

Psychiatrists ask s u c h questions to arrive at a diagnosis of depression, a n d epidemiologists use t h e m to get an idea of its prevalence in the p o p u l a ­ tion. According to the National Institute of Mental Health's Psychiatric Disorders in America, the yearly prevalence of depression is 2.2 percent for m e n a n d 5.0 p e r c e n t for w o m e n ; the lifetime rate is 3.6 percent for m e n a n d 8.7 p e r c e n t for w o m e n . I decided to check out the CES survey that Mary J o h n s o n h a d told m e the Harris researchers h a d adapted. I called the N I M H a n d w a s p u t in t o u c h with Karen Bourdon, the psychol7 8

THE

BACKLASH

251

MYTH

ogist in charge of researching s y m p t o m s of c o m m u n i t y distress. W h a t did they think of the w a y the Harris poll h a d used their scale? She said immediately, " W e wish they w o u l d n o t d o this. They s h o u l d k n o w better." She explained that the survey i n s t r u m e n t was never i n t e n d e d as a measure of depression: if all twenty questions are asked a n d carefully interpreted, it can b e helpful in m e a s u r i n g s y m p t o m s of distress in a c o m m u n i t y b u t n o t in diagnosing a medical illness. She a d d e d that in some of her other studies she h a d found a similar percentage of m e n a n d w o m e n s h o w i n g signs of affective distress: w o m e n have m o r e s y m p t o m s of depression; m e n , of antisocial behavior a n d a l c o h o l i s m . In informal conversations with several psychiatrists, I quickly learned that they considered a 4 0 p e r c e n t depression finding (not to speak of "severe depression") preposterous, because the responses to the six q u e s ­ tions the Harris pollsters h a d selected from the CES's twenty did n o t s h o w depression. They s h o w e d only that s o m e w o m e n (and m e n ) h a d felt "blue" d u r i n g the w e e k in question. They were at a loss to u n d e r s t a n d h o w Harris a n d Associates h a d c o m e u p with s u c h a bizarre result. Faludi's Backlash a p p e a r e d before Harris a n d Associates p u b l i s h e d their figures on w o m e n ' s depression, b u t she, too, found significantly higher rates of depression a m o n g w o m e n — m a r r i e d w o m e n , that i s : "Married w o m e n have m o r e n e r v o u s b r e a k d o w n s , nervousness, heart palpitations, a n d inertia . . . insomnia, trembling h a n d s , dizzy spells, nightmares, hy­ p o c h o n d r i a , passivity, agoraphobia . . . wives have the lowest self-esteem, felt the least attractive, reported the m o s t l o n e l i n e s s . " Her finding echoed feminist sociologist Jessie Bernard's 1972 w a r n i n g that "marriage may b e h a z a r d o u s to w o m e n ' s health." Yet in Psychiatric Disorders in America, w e read, "The strong protective effect of marriage against affec­ tive disorders is confirmed in m u c h of the epidemiologic l i t e r a t u r e . " Here are the findings of a major National Institute of Mental Health Study: 79

8 0

81

82

83

MAJOR DEPRESSION ANNUAL RATE PER

married (no divorce) never married divorced once divorced twice cohabiting

100

1.5 2.4 4.1 5.8 5.1

In a 1989 review of the literature o n marital h a p p i n e s s in Psychological Bulletin, the a u t h o r s conclude, "For b o t h sexes the married state (vs.

252

W H O

STOLE

FEMINISM?

u n m a r r i e d ) was associated w i t h favorable well-being, b u t the favorable o u t c o m e s p r o v e d stronger for w o m e n than m e n . " T h e day after I talked to Mary J o h n s o n a n d Liz Cooner, I received a call from Lois Hoeffler, the principal investigator w h o h a d left Harris a n d Associates to p u r s u e a graduate degree in sociology. She was contacting m e at the b e h e s t of Harris a n d Associates to explain the 4 0 percent finding. Ms. Hoeffler w a s c h a r m i n g , candid, a n d very sure of herself. W h e n I asked h e r h o w she h a d selected the six questions from the NIMH/CES diagnostic questionnaire, she said, " W e picked t h e m out arbitrarily." She told m e that a footnote o n page 185 of the Harris poll's full report "explains that the findings were n o t m e a n t as an indication of clinical depression." I told h e r that the footnote she alluded to was n o w h e r e in the Com­ m o n w e a l t h F u n d report. N o w h e r e was there any public m e n t i o n that "severe d e p r e s s i o n " w a s n o t m e a n t literally. She agreed that the actual responses w e r e n o t helpful for determining the prevalence of clinical depression, b u t they d i d s h o w that m o r e w o m e n are depressed than men. "If you are interested in g e n d e r differences, you can use these findings." I asked h e r a b o u t the ideas that g u i d e d her in designing a n d interpret­ ing the questionnaire. She told m e she was very concerned that the Harris poll s t u d y n o t b e j u s t a n o t h e r s t u d y reflecting "white male n o r m s " of research. She w a n t e d to avoid the usual "phallocentric" bias. She said: "I a m n o t really into phallocentric theory. So m u c h of psychology is based o n the fact that m e n are repressing w o m e n . I can't handle it. Most of the m a i n s t r e a m theories are based o n w h i t e male n o r m s . " She h a d w r i t t e n h e r master's thesis in H u n t e r College's Social Research Program. H e r topic w a s "feminist social theories of the self," a n d her research analyzed the ideas of Carol Gilligan. She finds Gilligan inade­ q u a t e because "Gilligan is still g r o u n d e d in male psychological theory." Ms. Hoeffler told m e that the radical feminist theologian Mary Daly was a m o r e direct influence o n h e r w o r k . A n o t h e r influence was Women's Ways of Knowing, the b o o k that i n t r o d u c e d the d u b i o u s epistemological distinc­ tion b e t w e e n " c o n n e c t e d k n o w e r s " ( w o m e n ) a n d "separate k n o w e r s " (men). Ms. Hoeffler told m e that her w o r k as a p r i m a r y investigator for Harris a n d Associates p r o v i d e d h e r w i t h a u n i q u e o p p o r t u n i t y to i m p l e m e n t her ideas. "It's n o t everyone w h o can apply w h a t they w r o t e in their master's thesis. I w a s lucky." I asked h e r w h e t h e r her i n p u t h a d been an important factor in the final p r o d u c t , to w h i c h she replied, "I got in s o m e stuff, b u t less t h a n I m i g h t have." " H o w o p e n was Harris a n d Associates president H u m p h r e y Taylor to h e r ideas?" I asked. 8 4

THE

BACKLASH

MYTH

253

H u m p h r e y was a t t u n e d to feminist things w h e n I was there. In the course of this project h e b e c a m e m o r e aware. . . . But I d o n o t try to reeducate m e n . I speak in their language. You have to speak in male language. You say: w e s h o u l d d o this survey because it's a h o t topic a n d will m a k e m o n e y , n o t w e s h o u l d d o this because it's the right thing to d o . I asked h e r if there are other polling organizations in w h i c h feminist activists are influential. She said: " O h yes. Greenberg-Lake." T h e reader will r e m e m b e r that the AAUW used Greenberg-Lake as its polling agency in studying the self-esteem of adolescents. It came u p w i t h the d r a m a t i c a n d inaccurate figure that schoolgirls experience a " 3 1 p o i n t d r o p in selfesteem." Hoeffler w e n t o n to say that w i t h the increase in the n u m b e r of femi­ nists w h o are d o i n g research, she expects m o r e polls a n d surveys to reflect the n e w consciousness. " W e are hitting the p e a k m o m e n t . A researcher's politics are always in the research. W e [feminist pollsters] balance it out." Since she considers m o s t research politically biased against w o m e n , s h e saw little reason to apologize for her feminist bias. Then she b r o u g h t u p Foucault. She h a d found m o s t male researchers to be extremely u n e n l i g h t e n e d . Foucault h a d helped h e r to see w h y "those w h o are subjugated a n d marginal are positioned to see the situation m o r e clearly." "Foucault is great," she c o n c l u d e d , a n d affirmed that his theories h a d "influenced m y participation at Harris while I was there." I h a d looked into two areas of the w o m e n ' s health s u r v e y — t h o s e o n psychological a b u s e a n d depression. Both revealed severe flaws a n d a p r o n o u n c e d ideological slant. T h e r e m a y well be p r o b l e m s with o t h e r parts of the survey. Did the C o m m o n w e a l t h F u n d — o n e of the oldest foundations in America, with an e n d o w m e n t of $ 3 4 0 m i l l i o n — k n o w that a study c o m m i s s i o n e d from a distinguished, long-established pollster w o u l d use a gynocentric researcher w h o s o u g h t to avoid "phallocentric" methods? But p e r h a p s the C o m m o n w e a l t h F u n d is n o t merely sinned against. Ellen Futter, p r e s i d e n t of Barnard College, is chair of the C o m m o n w e a l t h Fund's C o m m i s s i o n o n W o m e n ' s Health, w h i c h s p o n s o r e d the Harris survey. She is a m o n g the m a n y academic administrators w h o take pains to d e n y the existence of political correctness o n America's c a m p u s e s . O n the contrary, as she sees it, those w h o claim there is a p r o b l e m are d o i n g h a r m . In a recent interview w i t h Anna Q u i n d l e n for Mirabella, Futter said that the "PC" debate h a d given the p u b l i c a "skewed" picture of the a c a d e m y . "Because of these characterizations, s o m e very . . . thoughtful 85

254

W H O

STOLE

FEMINISM?

efforts to b r o a d e n the presentation of intellectual ideas . . . have been miscast." President Futter s h o u l d take a close look at the "thoughtful efforts" that w e n t into the w o m e n ' s health survey, commissioned u n d e r her w a t c h . 86

Hoeffler h a d successfully seen to it that the Harris report was not just a n o t h e r s t u d y applying "white male n o r m s " of research. D o n n a Shalala s p o t t e d this feature of the r e p o r t a n d c o m m e n d e d it as a distinguishing virtue. O n e m u s t h o p e that h e r c o m m e n t that "white male" research has prevailed "for too l o n g " d o e s n o t represent a considered j u d g m e n t . For unlike Ms. Hoeffler, a n ideological Ms. Shalala w o u l d b e n o bit player in the misandrist g a m e that the g e n d e r feminist zealots are playing. The professionalism of American research is an e n o r m o u s a n d precious na­ tional resource. A n d Ms. Shalala h e a d s a d e p a r t m e n t w h o s e outlays are almost d o u b l e that of the D e p a r t m e n t of Defense. Robert Reich, the U.S secretary of labor, w r o t e a blurb for Backlash describing it as "spellbinding a n d frightening . . . a w a k e - u p call to the m e n as well as the w o m e n w h o are struggling to build a gender-respectful s o c i e t y . " O n e can only h o p e , again, that Reich was too spellbound to have read Backlash w i t h a discriminating m i n d . W h a t is m o r e alarming t h a n a n y t h i n g Faludi has to say a b o u t an undeclared war against Ameri­ can w o m e n is the credulity it has m e t in high public officials on w h o s e j u d g m e n t w e o u g h t to b e able to rely. 87

Chapter 12

The Gender Wardens

Censorship is the strongest drive in human nature; sex is a weak second. — P H I L KERBY, Los Angeles

Times

editorial writer, o n a postcard to Nat Hentoff 1

Question: How many feminists does it take to screw in a light bulb? Feminist answer: That's not funny.

It is s o m e t i m e s said that feminists d o n ' t have a sense of h u m o r . Yet, there are s o m e situations, n o t funny to m o s t w o m e n , that g e n d e r feminists seem to find very amusing. About a t h o u s a n d feminists were p r e s e n t at Manhattan's 9 2 n d Street Y on Mother's Day 1 9 9 2 to hear a debate b e t w e e n Susan Faludi a n d Playboy columnist Asa Baber. Baber o p e n e d his talk b y observing that o n Mother's Day, the p h o n e lines t h r o u g h o u t t h e United States are j a m m e d because everyone is trying to call h o m e to talk to their m o t h e r s . O n Father's Day, the lines are free. " W e have to ask w h y there is so m u c h less interest in fathers," said Baber. The assembled w o m e n , m o s t of t h e m fans of Ms. Faludi, found this uproarious. "It b r o u g h t d o w n t h e h o u s e , " said Baber. "At first, I d i d n ' t get it. I t h o u g h t m y fly w a s o p e n . " But t h e n h e caught o n a n d said, "If y o u think that is funny, y o u are going to t h i n k this is a laugh riot: I t h i n k t h e 2

256

W H O

STOLE

FEMINISM?

fact that o u r fathers are so m u c h o u t of the loop is a major tragedy in our culture." Baber h a d taken a n o t h e r misstep, b u t this time he didn't tickle anyone's funny b o n e . An outraged a u d i e n c e hissed a n d b o o e d him. Later, w h e n he was asked w h e t h e r this was because his hecklers believed that m e n were useless, irrelevant, a n d potentially dangerous, Baber answered, "You got i t . " To t h e m h e a p p e a r e d to b e j u s t a n o t h e r patriarch exacting homage. T h e jeering, h o o t i n g a t m o s p h e r e in w h i c h Baber found himself was familiar to m e . I h a d e n c o u n t e r e d it in the "safe spaces" where gender feminists gather to tell o n e a n o t h e r p u t - d o w n stories describing h o w a sister h a d r o u t e d s o m e male w h o d i d n ' t have a clue at h o w offensive h e w a s (recall the "Shut u p , you fucker" with w h i c h one partisan h a d s q u e l c h e d a n u n s u s p e c t i n g male s t u d e n t critic in a feminist classroom). I'd h e a r d it in the appreciative laughter of the audience w h e n feminist academics r e p o r t e d to t h e m o n h o w they h a d played o n the liberal guilt of the faculty to get their projects a p p r o v e d . Baber was in the c a m p of the e n e m y , a n d a n y t h i n g h e h a d to say was regarded as offensive or, if he w e r e lucky, laughable. T h e derision of the w o m e n w h o were hooting at Baber was safely directed at " m e n . " O n e m u s t w o n d e r w h a t Baber's audience w o u l d m a k e of the millions of w o m e n w h o still observe the amenities of Father's Day. So intent are g e n d e r feminists o n c o n d e m n i n g the "patriarchy" that they rarely let o n h o w they feel a b o u t w o m e n w h o "go along." Nevertheless, it is n o t h a r d to see that in jeering at Baber, they were also jeering at most American w o m e n . T h a t is the corrosive p a r a d o x of g e n d e r feminism's misandrist stance: n o g r o u p of w o m e n can wage w a r on m e n w i t h o u t at the same time denigrating the w o m e n w h o respect those m e n . It is just not possible to incriminate m e n w i t h o u t implying that large n u m b e r s of w o m e n are fools or worse. O t h e r g r o u p s have h a d their official e n e m i e s — w o r k e r s against capitalists, whites against blacks, H i n d u s against M u s l i m s — a n d for a while s u c h enmities m a y b e stable. But w h e n w o m e n set themselves against m e n , they simultaneously set themselves against other w o m e n in a g r o u p a n t a g o n i s m that is u n t e n a b l e from the outset. In the end, the g e n d e r feminist is always forced to s h o w her d i s a p p o i n t m e n t a n d annoy­ ance w i t h the w o m e n w h o are to b e found in the c a m p of the enemy. Misandry m o v e s o n to misogyny. Betty Friedan o n c e told Simone d e Beauvoir that she believed w o m e n s h o u l d have the choice to stay h o m e to raise their children if that is w h a t they w i s h to d o . Beauvoir answered: " N o , w e don't believe that any w o m a n s h o u l d have this choice. N o w o m a n s h o u l d be authorized to stay 3

THE

GENDER

WARDENS

257

at h o m e to raise h e r children. Society s h o u l d be totally different. W o m e n should n o t have that choice, precisely because if there is s u c h a choice, too m a n y w o m e n will m a k e that o n e . " De Beauvoir t h o u g h t this drastic policy was n e e d e d to p r e v e n t w o m e n from leading blighted conventional lives. T h o u g h she does n o t spell it out, she m u s t have been aware that her "totally different" society w o u l d require a legion of Big Sisters e n d o w e d by the state w i t h the p o w e r to prohibit a n y w o m a n w h o w a n t s to m a r r y a n d stay h o m e with children from carrying o u t her plans. She betrays the patronizing attitude typical of m a n y g e n d e r feminists toward "uninitiated" w o m e n . An illiberal authoritarianism is implicit in the doctrine that w o m e n are socialized to w a n t the things the g e n d e r feminist believes they should not want. For those w h o believe that w h a t w o m e n w a n t a n d h o p e for is "constrained" or "coerced" by their u p b r i n g i n g in the patriarchy are led to dismiss the values a n d aspirations of m o s t w o m e n . T h e next step m a y not be inevitable, b u t it is almost irresistible: to regard w o m e n as badly b r o u g h t - u p children w h o s e harmful desires a n d i m m a t u r e choices m u s t be discounted. G e n d e r feminists, s u c h as Sandra Lee Bartky, argue for a "feminist reconstruction of self a n d society [that] m u s t go far b e y o n d anything n o w contemplated in the theory or politics of the m a i n s t r e a m w o m e n ' s m o v e ­ m e n t . " Bartky, w h o writes o n "the p h e n o m e n o l o g y of feminist con­ sciousness," is c o n c e r n e d with w h a t a p r o p e r feminist consciousness should be like. In her b o o k Femininity and Domination, she says, "A t h o r o u g h overhaul of desire is clearly o n the feminist agenda: the fantasy that w e are o v e r w h e l m e d by Rhett Butler s h o u l d b e traded in for o n e in w h i c h w e seize state p o w e r a n d reeducate h i m . " Bartky, however, d o e s not advocate a n y authoritarian measures to protect w o m e n from incorrect values a n d preferences s h a p e d by "the masters of patriarchal society." She points out that at present w e d o n o t k n o w h o w to "decolonize the imagi­ n a t i o n . " She cautions that "overhauling" desires a n d "trading in" p o p u l a r fantasies m a y have to wait for the day w h e n feminist theorists develop an "adequate theory of sexuality." In her apocalyptic feminist vision, w o m e n as well as m e n m a y o n e day be radically reconstructed. W e will have learned to prefer the "right" way to live. 4

5

6

7

Although they m a y disagree politically a b o u t w h a t measures to take with w o m e n w h o m a k e the w r o n g choices, d e Beauvoir a n d her latterday descendants share a c o m m o n p o s t u r e : they c o n d e s c e n d to, patronize, a n d pity the b e n i g h t e d females w h o , because they have been "socialized" in the sex/gender system, cannot help w a n t i n g the w r o n g things in life. Their disdain for the hapless victims of patriarchy is rarely acknowledged.

258

W H O

STOLE

FEMINISM?

W h e n feminists talk of a n e w society a n d of h o w people m u s t be changed, they invariably have in m i n d m e n w h o exploit a n d abuse w o m e n . But it is n o t difficult to see that they regard most w o m e n as men's dupes. C o n s i d e r h o w N a o m i Wolf (in the Beauty Myth) regards the eight million American w o m e n m e m b e r s of W e i g h t W a t c h e r s — a s cultists in n e e d of d e p r o g r a m m i n g . Most g e n d e r feminists may not be ready to advocate coercion of w o m e n of low feminist consciousness, b u t they are very m u c h in favor of a massive a n d concerted effort to give the desires, aspirations, a n d values of American w o m e n a t h o r o u g h makeover. As the feminist p h i l o s o p h e r Alison Jaggar p u t s it, "If individual desires a n d in­ terests are socially constituted . . . , the ultimate authority of individual j u d g m e n t c o m e s into question. Perhaps p e o p l e may be mistaken about truth, morality or even their o w n interests; p e r h a p s they may be system­ atically self-deceived." Note that Jaggar explicitly i m p u g n s the traditional liberal principle that the m a n y individual j u d g m e n t s a n d preferences are the ultimate authority. I find that a chilling doctrine: w h e n the people are systematically self-deceived, the ultimate authority is p r e s u m e d to be vested in a v a n g u a r d that u n m a s k s their self-deception. As Ms. Jaggar says, "Certain historical circumstances allow specific g r o u p s of w o m e n to t i a n s c e n d at least partially the perceptions a n d theoretical constructs of male d o m i n a n c e . " It is these w o m e n of high feminist consciousness w h o "inspire a n d g u i d e w o m e n in a struggle for social change." 8

9

Respect for people's preferences is generally t h o u g h t to be fundamental for democracy. But ideologues find ways of denying this principle. The g e n d e r feminist w h o claims to represent the true interests of w o m e n is convinced that s h e p r o f o u n d l y u n d e r s t a n d s their situation a n d so is in an exceptional position to k n o w their true interests. In practice, this means she is p r e p a r e d to dismiss p o p u l a r preferences in an illiberal way. To justify this, feminist p h i l o s o p h e r Marilyn Friedman argues that p o p u l a r preferences are often " i n a u t h e n t i c " a n d that even liberals are aware of this: Liberal feminists can easily j o i n with other feminists in recognizing that political d e m o c r a c y by itself is insufficient to ensure that pref­ erences are formed w i t h o u t coercion, constraint, u n d u e restriction of o p t i o n s , a n d so forth. Social, cultural, a n d economic conditions are as i m p o r t a n t as political conditions, if n o t m o r e so, in ensuring that preferences are, in s o m e i m p o r t a n t sense, a u t h e n t i c . 10

F r i e d m a n is quite w r o n g in her assumptions: anyone, liberal or conser­ vative, w h o believes in d e m o c r a c y will sense danger in them. W h o will

THE

GENDER

259

WARDENS

"ensure" that preferences are "authentic"? W h a t additions to political democracy does F r i e d m a n have in m i n d ? A constitutional a m e n d m e n t to provide reeducation c a m p s for m e n a n d w o m e n of false consciousness? Is she p r e p a r e d to go the authoritarian r o u t e indicated by d e Beauvoir? T h e feminist w h o thinks that d e m o c r a c y is insufficient believes that seemingly free a n d enlightened American w o m e n have values a n d desires that, u n b e k n o w n s t to t h e m , are being m a n i p u l a t e d b y a system intent o n keeping w o m e n subjugated to m e n . Romance, a major cause of defection from the gynocentric enclave, is ever a sticking p o i n t w i t h g e n d e r femi­ nists. Gloria Steinem, writing on the subject, engages in this k i n d of d e b u n k i n g "critique": "Romance itself serves a larger political p u r p o s e by offering at least a temporary reward for g e n d e r roles a n d threatening rebels with loneliness a n d rejection. . . . It privatizes o u r h o p e s a n d dis­ tracts u s from m a k i n g societal changes. T h e R o m a n 'bread a n d circuses' way of keeping the masses h a p p y . . . . m i g h t n o w b e u p d a t e d . " Jaggar, too, sees in r o m a n c e a distraction from sexual politics: "The ideology of romantic love has n o w b e c o m e so pervasive that m o s t w o m e n in c o n t e m ­ porary capitalism p r o b a b l y believe that they m a r r y for love rather t h a n for economic s u p p o r t . " For her authoritarian disdain, d e Beauvoir deserves o u r liberal censure. But the less authoritarian feminists also deserve it. N o intelligent a n d liberal p e r s o n — n o o n e w h o has read a n d appreciated the limpid political prose of George Orwell or w h o has learned from the savage history of twentieth-century totalitarianism—can accept the idea of a social agenda to "overhaul" the desires of large n u m b e r s of p e o p l e to m a k e t h e m m o r e "authentic." In her defense, the g e n d e r feminist replies that effective teachers or political leaders m u s t always try to h e l p others overcome benightedness. W h e n w o m e n are caught in a system designed to p e r p e t u a t e male d o m i ­ nation, they m u s t b e enlightened. There is n o t h i n g intrinsically illiberal about seeking to m a k e t h e m conscious of their subjugation. It is the very essence of a liberal education to o p e n m i n d s a n d enlighten consciousness. If that entails "reeducating" t h e m a n d overhauling their desires, so b e it. This a r g u m e n t could easily b e m a d e in an earlier era w h e n classically liberal principles were being applied to m e n b u t n o t to w o m e n . In the nineteenth century, the proposition that all m e n are created equal was taken to m e a n "all males." W o m e n did n o t have the rights that m e n h a d , and, w h a t is m o r e , they w e r e being taught that their s u b o r d i n a t e status was fitting a n d natural. Feminist p h i l o s o p h e r s like J o h n Stuart Mill a n d Harriet Taylor rightly feared that s u c h teaching was helping to p e r p e t u a t e inequities. U n d e r the circumstances, political democracy applied only 11

12

260

W H O

STOLE

FEMINISM?

minimally to w o m e n . Because they did n o t vote, their preferences were n o t in play, a n d t h e question of h o w authentic their preferences were was of i m p o r t a n c e i n a s m u c h as it affected their ability to agitate for the rights that w e r e being w i t h h e l d from t h e m . But w o m e n are n o longer disenfranchised, a n d their preferences are being t a k e n into account. N o r are they n o w taught that they are subordi­ nate or that a s u b o r d i n a t e role for t h e m is fitting a n d proper. Have any w o m e n in history b e e n better informed, m o r e aware of their rights a n d options? Since w o m e n today can n o longer be regarded as the victims of a n u n d e m o c r a t i c indoctrination, w e m u s t regard their preferences as "au­ thentic." Any o t h e r attitude toward American w o m e n is unacceptably patronizing a n d p r o f o u n d l y illiberal.

G e n d e r feminists are especially disapproving of the lives of traditionally religious w o m e n s u c h as evangelical Christian w o m e n , Catholic w o m e n , or O r t h o d o x J e w i s h w o m e n , w h o m they see as being conditioned for highly restricted roles. Surely, they say, it is evident that such w o m e n are subjugated, a n d the choices they m a k e inauthentic. As Gloria Steinem explains it, the a p p e a l of religious fundamentalism for w o m e n is that "the p r o m i s e is safety in r e t u r n for obedience, respectability in return for selfrespect a n d f r e e d o m — a sad b a r g a i n . " T h a t is a h a r s h j u d g m e n t to m a k e a b o u t millions of American w o m e n . Ms. Steinem is of course free to disagree with conventionally religious w o m e n o n a n y n u m b e r of issues, b u t she is n o t morally free to cast aspersions o n their a u t o n o m y a n d self-respect. T h e N e w Feminism is s u p p o s e d to b e a b o u t sisterhood. W h y are its m o s t p r o m i n e n t practition­ ers so c o n d e s c e n d i n g ? Steinem herself k n o w s a thing or two a b o u t h o w to recruit adherents to a cause b y p r o m i s e s of "safety" a n d "self-respect." T h e feminist ortho­ d o x y s h e portrays p r o m i s e s safety in a sisterhood that will offer u n h a p p y or insecure w o m e n a v e n u e w h e r e they can build self-esteem a n d attain an authenticity enjoyed b y n o other g r o u p of w o m e n . T h e traditionally religious w o m e n of today, be they Protestant Chris­ tians, O r t h o d o x J e w s , or observant Catholics—emphatically d o not think of themselves as subjugated, lacking in self-respect, or unfree. Indeed, they very p r o p e r l y resent being described that way. For they are perfectly aware that they have all the rights that m e n have. If they choose to lead the lives they d o , that is their affair. Of course there are feminists w h o disapprove of the way these w o m e n live, a n d s o m e m a y even t h i n k of t h e m as pitiable. These feminists are 13

14

THE

GENDER

WARDENS

261

perfectly at liberty to try to p e r s u a d e t h e m to change their way of life. For their part, traditional w o m e n m i g h t try to p e r s u a d e the feminists of the merits of the religious way of life. Mostly, however, gender feminists are content to dismiss a n d even jeer at the religious w o m e n w i t h o u t engaging or confronting t h e m in a respectful dialogue, a n d it is n o t surprising that the latter have g r o w n increasingly impatient with their feminist critics. Several years ago, Liz Harris w r o t e an extraordinary a n d m u c h - t a l k e d about article for the New Yorker o n the u l t r a o r t h o d o x Hasidic w o m e n of Brooklyn, N e w Y o r k . She h a d expected to find oppressed w o m e n — "self-effacing d r u d g e s " w o r n d o w n by a family system that exalted m e n a n d denigrated w o m e n . Instead, she was impressed by their strong mar­ riages, their large, thriving families, a n d their "remarkably energetic, m u ­ tually supportive c o m m u n i t y of w o m e n , an almost Amazonian society." "Most of the [Hasidic] w o m e n sped a r o u n d like intergalactic missiles, a n d the greater majority of those I was to e n c o u n t e r seemed . . . to be as occupied with w o r t h y projects as Eleanor Roosevelt, as hospitable as Welcome Wagoneers." 15

16

My relatives on m y h u s b a n d ' s side are Jewish, a n d m o s t are O r t h o d o x . Ms. Harris's description fits t h e m to a T. At family gatherings, I sometimes tell m y sister-in-law, m y nieces, a n d their friends a b o u t the feminist theorists w h o pity t h e m a n d w o u l d liberate t h e m from their "gendered families." They are m o r e a m u s e d than offended. It might surprise Gloria Steinem to hear they have a rather s h r e w d u n d e r s t a n d i n g of her k i n d of feminism. They simply w a n t n o part of it. They believe they have m a d e an a u t o n o m o u s choice: they also believe their way of life offers t h e m s u c h basic advantages as c o m m u n i t y , grace, dignity, a n d spirituality. They see the patriarchal aspects of their tradition as generally benign. Some of t h e m find aspects of J u d a i s m insensitive to i m p o r t a n t concerns of w o m e n , b u t they are even m o r e p u t off by the g e n d e r feminist's rejection of traditional religion.

But of course it is not only religious w o m e n w h o reject the g e n d e r feminist perspective. A clear majority of secular American w o m e n enjoy m a n y aspects of "la différence." Many w a n t things that gender feminists are trying to free t h e m from, be it conventional marriages a n d families, or fashions a n d m a k e u p that sometimes render t h e m "sex objects." Such feminists are uncomfortably aware that they are n o t reaching these w o m e n ; b u t instead of asking themselves w h e r e they may be going w r o n g , they fall back o n the question-begging theory of false consciousness to explain the mass indifference of the w o m e n they w a n t to save.

262

W H O

STOLE

FEMINISM?

For the g e n d e r feminists d o w a n t to save w o m e n — f r o m themselves. False consciousness is said to b e e n d e m i c in the patriarchy. And every feminist has h e r theory. Feminists w h o specialize in the theory of feminist consciousness talk a b o u t m e c h a n i s m s by w h i c h "patriarchy invades the intimate recesses of personality w h e r e it m a y m a i m a n d cripple the spirit forever." However, a growing n u m b e r of w o m e n are questioning w h e t h e r g e n d e r feminism, w i t h its insistence that personal relationships b e c o n s t r u e d in t e r m s of political p o w e r , has taken m u c h of the joy out of male/female intimacy, m a i m i n g a n d crippling the spirit of some of its devotees forever. 17

A few years ago, a n o p - e d piece I wrote for the Chronicle of Higher Education a r o u s e d a s t o r m of protest because it defended the "many w o m e n [who] c o n t i n u e to s w o o n at the sight of Rhett Butler carrying Scarlett O'Hara u p the stairs to a fate u n d r e a m t of in feminist philoso­ p h y . " T h e Society for W o m e n in Philosophy (SWIP), an organization w i t h i n the American Philosophical Association, arranged for a public debate b e t w e e n Marilyn F r i e d m a n , a p h i l o s o p h e r from the University of W a s h i n g t o n , a n d m e . Ms. F r i e d m a n informed the overflow audience that she w a s s t u n n e d by m y flippant reaction to Rhett's rape of Scarlett—for rape she considered it to be. "The n a m e of Richard Speck, to take one example, can r e m i n d u s that real rape is not the pleasurable fantasy intimated in Gone with the Wind. To p u t the point graphically: w o u l d ' m a n y w o m e n ' still s w o o n over Butler's rape of O'Hara if they k n e w that h e u r i n a t e d o n h e r ? " Lest readers w o n d e r h o w they could have missed that lurid scene in Gone with the Wind, I hasten to say that Ms. Friedman m a d e u p this detail p r e s u m a b l y to bolster her point. In m y rejoinder, I told the a u d i e n c e a b o u t a recent poll taken by Harriet Taylor, the feminist a u t h o r of Scarlett's Women: "Gone with the Wind" and Its Female Fans. Ms. Taylor did n o t p r e t e n d that her survey was scientific, b u t w h a t she found has t h e ring of t r u t h . She asked G W T W fans w h a t they t h o u g h t h a d h a p p e n e d w h e n Scarlett w a s carried u p the stairs. T h e overwhelming majority of the four h u n d r e d r e s p o n d e n t s indicated that they did not t h i n k Rhett r a p e d Scarlett, t h o u g h there was s o m e "mutually pleasurable r o u g h s e x . " Almost all r e p o r t e d that they found the scene "erotically exciting." As o n e r e s p o n d e n t p u t it: 1 8

1 9

20

21

Scarlett's story is that of a w o m a n w h o has h a d lousy sex from two i n c o m p e t e n t h u s b a n d s (a "boy" a n d an "old m a n , " as Rhett reminds her) [who] k n e w n o t h i n g a b o u t w o m e n . At last she finds out w h a t

THE

GENDER

263

WARDENS

good sex feels like, even if (or probably because) her first experience takes place in m u t u a l inebriation a n d a spirit of vengeful a n g e r . 22

The idea of "mutually pleasurable r o u g h sex" is n o t high o n the g e n d e r feminist list of entertainments. All the same, if the N e w Feminist philos­ ophers were h o n e s t a b o u t taking w o m e n seriously, they w o u l d b e paying attention to w h a t , in m o s t w o m e n ' s m i n d s , is a fundamental distinction: Scarlett was ravished, n o t raped. T h e next m o r n i n g finds h e r relishing the m e m o r y . Ms. Friedman's insistence that Scarlett was r a p e d was j u s t an­ other example of h o w g e n d e r feminists, estranged from the w o m e n they claim to represent, tend to view male/female relations as violent or h u ­ miliating to w o m e n . Friedman, like Bartky, takes comfort in the idea that w o m e n ' s desires a n d aspirations will change in time. Younger w o m e n , she says, are already less inclined to b e taken in by the Rhett Butler mystique, a n d his fasci­ nation s h o u l d c o n t i n u e to diminish. T h a t is, unless p e o p l e like m e give younger w o m e n the idea that there is n o t h i n g w r o n g w i t h taking pleasure in Scarlett's e n r a p t u r e d submission. " H o w sad it w o u l d b e , " she writes, "if Sommers's writings acted as an obstacle to change, bolstering those w h o interpret the sexual d o m i n a t i o n of w o m e n as pleasurable, a n d intimidating those w h o speak out against such d o m i n a t i o n . " Ms. F r i e d m a n considers Sandra Bartky to b e o n e of her m e n t o r s a n d Bartky is, indeed, of the opinion that active measures s h o u l d b e taken to prevent the spread of "harmful" writings. In 1990 I was c o m m i s s i o n e d b y the Atlantic to d o a piece o n c a m p u s feminism. W h e n Sandra Bartky s o m e h o w learned of this, she w r o t e to the editors, pleading with t h e m not to p u b l i s h it. She told t h e m that I w a s a disreputable p h i l o s o p h e r a n d "a right-wing ideologue." T h e Chronicle of Higher Education found o u t a b o u t the flap, a n d called Ms. Bartky to ask her w h y she h a d written the letter. At first she denied having asked t h e m to s u p p r e s s m y piece, claiming that s h e h a d only requested that m y article b e a c c o m p a n i e d by a n o t h e r giving a different p o i n t of view. But w h e n the Chronicle re­ porter p o i n t e d out that h e h a d a copy of the letter a n d that it contained n o s u c h request, she defiantly a d m i t t e d having tried to stop the piece: "I w o u l d n ' t w a n t a n u t case w h o t h i n k s there wasn't a Holocaust to write a b o u t the Holocaust. Editors exercise discretion. By n o t asking s o m e o n e to write a piece, that's n o t censorship, that's d i s c r e t i o n . " 23

24

Inadvertently, Bartky got her way. By the time the w h o l e matter w a s sorted out, the Atlantic h a d gone on to other issues. Editor Michael Curtis told the Chronicle that h e was embarrassed that the piece h a d n o t b e e n

264

W H O

STOLE

FEMINISM?

p u b l i s h e d . T h e Chronicle reporter asked w h a t h e t h o u g h t of Bartky's let­ ter. "It s e e m e d to confirm s o m e of the darker aspects of Ms. Sommers's article, w h i c h p o i n t e d o u t the extraordinary lengths s o m e of the w o m e n w e r e p r e p a r e d to go to s h a p e all discussion in w h i c h they h a d an interest," he replied. Rhett Butler c o n t i n u e s to p i q u e the gender feminists. Naomi Wolf, at least in h e r earlier incarnation, w a s fond of explaining to the public h o w w o m e n cooperate in their o w n degradation. W h e n asked w h y w o m e n enjoyed the "rape s c e n e " in Gone with the Wind, Ms. Wolf answered that they h a d b e e n "trained" to accept that k i n d of treatment a n d so grew to like it: "It's n o t surprising that, after decades of being exposed to a culture that consistently eroticizes violence against w o m e n , w o m e n , too, w o u l d often internalize their o w n t r a i n i n g . " I can't h e l p being a m u s e d by h o w upset the N e w Feminists get over the vicarious pleasure w o m e n take in Scarlett's transports. All that incor­ rect swooning! H o w are w e ever going to get w o m e n to see h o w w r o n g it is? Nevertheless, the g e n d e r feminists seem to believe that thirty years from n o w , w i t h the a c a d e m y transformed a n d the feminist consciousness of the p o p u l a t i o n raised, there will be a n e w Zeitgeist. W o m e n w h o interpret sexual d o m i n a t i o n as pleasurable will then be few a n d far be­ tween, a n d Scarlett, alas, will b e o u t of style. Is this scenario o u t of the question? I think it is. Sexuality has always b e e n p a r t of o u r n a t u r e s , a n d there is n o o n e right way. Men like Rhett Butler will c o n t i n u e to fascinate m a n y w o m e n . N o r will the doctrine that this d e m e a n s t h e m have m u c h of a n effect. H o w m a n y w o m e n w h o like Rhett B u t l e r - t y p e s are in search of s u p p o r t g r o u p s to help t h e m change? Such w o m e n are n o t grateful to the gender feminists for going to war against male lust. T h e y m a y even b e offended at the suggestion that they themselves are being d e g r a d e d a n d humiliated; for that treats their enjoy­ m e n t as pathological. Defending w o m e n w h o enjoy the idea of ravishment is not the same as h o l d i n g a brief for a n y specific k i n d of fantasy or sexual preference. Fantasies of female d o m i n a t i o n are also popular. W o m e n are clearly ca­ pable of treating m e n as "sex objects" w i t h a n enthusiasm equal to, a n d in s o m e cases exceeding, that of m e n for treating w o m e n as such. Male strip-shows s e e m to b e as p o p u l a r as T u p p e r w a r e parties. T h e dissident feminist Camille Paglia uses the term pagan gazers for those w h o publicly w a t c h males or females as sex objects. She has n o quarrel w i t h the male gazers, b u t she positively a p p l a u d s the female ones. " W o m e n are getting m u c h m o r e h o n e s t a b o u t looking at m e n , a n d a b o u t leering. Finally we're getting s o m e w h e r e . " 25

26

27

THE

GENDER

265

WARDENS

If Paglia is right, sexual liberation m a y n o t b e going in the direction of eliminating the O t h e r as a sex object; it m a y instead b e going in the direc­ tion of encouraging w o m e n to objectify the male as O t h e r , too. Such a d e ­ v e l o p m e n t w o u l d certainly b e a far cry from the g e n d e r feminist Utopia described b y University of Massachusetts p h i l o s o p h e r A n n Ferguson:

W i t h the elimination of sex roles, a n d the disappearance, in a n overpopulated world, of a n y biological n e e d for sex to b e associated with procreation, there w o u l d b e n o reason w h y s u c h a society could n o t transcend sexual gender. It w o u l d n o longer matter w h a t biological sex individuals had. Love relationships, a n d the sexual relationships developing o u t of t h e m , w o u l d b e based o n the indi­ vidual m e s h i n g together of a n d r o g y n o u s h u m a n b e i n g s . 28

Ferguson's Utopia conjures u p visions of a w o r l d of gender-neutral characters like Pat o n "Saturday Night Live." Although Pat-like p e o p l e can b e very nice (doubtless, never r o u g h ) , their sexually correct m e s h i n g s d o not invite heated speculation. To p u t the matter bluntly: the a n d r o g ­ y n o u s society has always b e e n a b o r i n g feminist fairy tale w i t h n o roots in psychological or social reality. A g r o u p of gay w o m e n w h o call themselves "lipstick lesbians" are rebelling against the a n d r o g y n o u s ideal that feminists like A n n Ferguson a n d Joyce Trebilcot celebrate. According to Lindsy Van Gelder, a writer for Allure magazine, the lipstick lesbians are tired of Birkenstock a n d L. L. Bean courtier, " w o m y n ' s " m u s i c festivals, p o t l u c k d i n n e r s , a n d all the "rigid d o s a n d don'ts of feminist i d e o l o g y . " She reports o n several lesbian go-go bars in different p a r t s of the c o u n t r y w h e r e lipstick les­ bians congregate a n d treat each other in ways that are very m u c h frowned u p o n in m o s t g e n d e r feminist circles. I believe that the Bartkys, the Friedmans, a n d the Fergusons are d o o m e d to d i s a p p o i n t m e n t b u t that in a n y case n o feminist s h o u l d ever have an agenda of managing w o m e n ' s desires a n d fantasies. For s u p p o s e we could succeed in "trading in the fantasy of being o v e r w h e l m e d by Rhett Butler for o n e in w h i c h w e seize state p o w e r a n d reeducate h i m . " Suppose, indeed, that w e succeeded in getting m o s t p e o p l e to feel a n d to behave in ways that are sexually correct by g e n d e r feminist lights. O n c e the m e t h o d s a n d institutions for overhauling desires are in place, w h a t w o u l d p r e v e n t their d e p l o y m e n t by n e w g r o u p s w h o have different con­ ceptions of w h a t is sexually correct a n d incorrect? Having seized state power, s o m e zealous faction w o u l d find ready to h a n d the a p p a r a t u s 29

266

W H O

STOLE

FEMINISM?

n e e d e d for r e e d u c a t i n g p e o p l e to its idea of w h a t is "authentic," n o t only sexually b u t politically a n d culturally. So far, the efforts to get w o m e n to overhaul their fantasies a n d desires have b e e n noncoercive, b u t they d o n o t seem to have been particularly effective. To get the results they want, the gender feminists have turned their attention to art a n d literature, w h e r e fantasies are manufactured a n d reinforced. Ms. F r i e d m a n calls o u r attention to Angela Carter's feminist rewrite of the " m o r n i n g after" scene in Gone with the Wind: "Scarlett lies in b e d smiling the n e x t m o r n i n g because she b r o k e Rhett's kneecaps the night before. A n d the reason that h e disappeared before she awoke was to go off to E u r o p e to visit a good k n e e c a p specialist." This is m e a n t to b e a m u s i n g , b u t of course the p o i n t is serious. For the g e n d e r feminist believes that Margaret Mitchell got it wrong. If Mitchell h a d u n d e r s t o o d better h o w to m a k e a true heroine of Scarlett, she w o u l d have m a d e h e r different. Scarlett w o u l d then have been the k i n d of person w h o w o u l d plainly see that Rhett m u s t b e severely p u n i s h e d for w h a t h e h a d inflicted o n h e r the night before. More generally, the gender feminist believes s h e m u s t rebut a n d replace the fiction that glorifies d o m i n a n t males a n d the w o m e n w h o find t h e m attractive. This p o p u l a r literature, w h i c h "eroticizes" male d o m i n a n c e , m u s t b e o p p o s e d and, if possible, eradicated. F u r t h e r m o r e , t h e feminist establishment m u s t seek ways to foster the p o p u l a r i t y of a n e w genre of r o m a n t i c film a n d fiction that s e n d s a m o r e edifying message to the w o m e n a n d m e n of America. A widely u s e d t e x t b o o k gives u s a fair idea of w h a t that message should be: 30

Plots for nonsexist films could include w o m e n in traditionally male j o b s (e.g., long-distance truck driver). . . . For example, a highr a n k i n g female A r m y officer, treated with respect by m e n a n d w o m e n alike, c o u l d b e s h o w n n o t only in various sexual encounters w i t h o t h e r p e o p l e b u t also carrying o u t her j o b in a h u m a n e m a n n e r . O r p e r h a p s the m a i n character could be a female urologist. She could interact w i t h n u r s e s a n d other medical personnel, diagnose illnesses brilliantly, a n d treat patients with great sympathy as well as have sex w i t h t h e m . W h e n the A r m y officer or the urologist engage in sexual activities, they will treat their partners a n d be treated by t h e m in s o m e of the considerate ways described a b o v e . 31

T h e truck driver a n d the urologist are m e a n t to be serious role models for the free feminist w o m a n , h u m a n e , forthrightly sexual, b u t not discrim­ inating against either g e n d e r in her preferences for partners, so consider­ ate that all will respect her. These m o d e l s are projected in the h o p e that

THE

GENDER

267

WARDENS

someday films a n d novels w i t h s u c h t h e m e s a n d heroines will b e p r e ­ ferred, replacing the currently p o p u l a r "incorrect" r o m a n c e s w i t h a m o r e acceptable ideal. It seems a futile h o p e . Perhaps the best way to see w h a t the g e n d e r feminists are u p against is to c o m p a r e their version of r o m a n c e with that e m b o d i e d in c o n t e m p o r a r y r o m a n c e fiction that sells in the millions. Here is a typical example: Townsfolk called h i m devil. For d a r k a n d enigmatic Julian, Earl of Ravenwood, w a s a m a n with a legendary t e m p e r a n d a first wife w h o s e mysterious d e a t h w o u l d n o t b e forgotten. . . . N o w countrybred S o p h y Dorring is a b o u t to b e c o m e Ravenwood's n e w bride. Drawn to his masculine strength a n d the glitter of desire that b u r n e d in his emerald eyes, the tawny-haired lass h a d h e r o w n reasons for agreeing to a marriage of convenience. . . . Sophy Dorring i n t e n d e d to teach the devil to l o v e . 32

Romance novels a m o u n t to almost 4 0 p e r c e n t of all mass-market p a ­ perback sales. Harlequin Enterprises alone has sales of close to 2 0 0 mil­ lion b o o k s w o r l d w i d e . They a p p e a r in m a n y languages, including Japanese, Swedish, a n d Greek, a n d they are n o w beginning to a p p e a r in Eastern Europe. T h e readership is almost exclusively w o m e n . T h e chal­ lenge this presents to g e n d e r feminist ideologues is m o s t formidable since almost every h e r o in this fictional genre is an "alpha m a l e " like Rhett Butler or the Earl of Ravenwood. It was therefore to b e expected that the N e w Feminists w o u l d m a k e a concerted a t t e m p t to correct this literature a n d to replace it by a n e w one. Kathleen Gilles Seidel reports that "young, politically conscious edi­ tors" have b e e n pressuring writers "to conform to at least the a p p e a r a n c e of a m o r e feminist fantasy." But these a u t h o r s "felt that an alien sensi­ bility was being forced on their w o r k , that they weren't being allowed to speak to their readers in their o w n voices. They didn't w a n t to write a b o u t heroines w h o repair h e l i c o p t e r s . " Ms. Seidel notes that editorial p r e s ­ sure was especially strong o n writers w h o w e r e d r a w n to the m a c h o , domineering hero. Seidel is e c h o e d b y Jayne A n n Krentz, the hugely successful writer of r o m a n c e fiction w h o created the intriguing earl a n d his Sophy: 3 3

34

35

M u c h of this effort was exerted by a wave of y o u n g editors fresh out of East Coast colleges w h o arrived in N e w York to take u p their first positions in publishing. . . . They set a b o u t trying to m a k e r o m a n c e s

268

W H O

STOLE

FEMINISM?

respectable. T h e y looked for n e w a u t h o r s w h o shared their views of w h a t a respectable r o m a n c e s h o u l d be, a n d they tried to change the b o o k s b e i n g w r i t t e n b y the established, successful authors they in­ herited. T h e first target of these reforming editors was what has c o m e to b e k n o w n in the trade as the alpha m a l e . 36

Ms. Krentz lists several m o r e "targets," a m o n g t h e m "the aggressive seduction of the h e r o i n e by the h e r o " a n d the convention that the heroine is a virgin. T h e y o u n g editors' failure was " r e s o u n d i n g . " Their exhorta­ tions to c h a n g e h a d little effect o n the m o r e established writers. Nor did they s u c c e e d in their a i m of getting n e w writers to introduce a n e w a n d p o p u l a r genre of "politically correct r o m a n c e s . . . featuring sensitive, u n ­ aggressive h e r o e s a n d sexually experienced, right-thinking heroines in ' m o d e r n ' stories dealing w i t h t r e n d y issues. . . . Across the board, from series r o m a n c e to single title release, it is the writers w h o have steadfastly resisted the efforts to reform the genre w h o s e b o o k s consistently outsell all o t h e r s . " Sales are the true gauge of p u b l i c preference; in the last analysis, it was the readers' resistance to t h e "right-thinking" heroines a n d heros that caused the zealous editors to u n b e n d a n d retreat. T h e effort to i m p o s e feminist rectitude sometimes surfaces in less p o p ­ ular literary genres. T h e Israeli p o e t G e r s h o m Gorenberg, w h o h a d s u b ­ m i t t e d several p o e m s to Marge Piercy, poetry editor of Tikkun magazine, received a letter from h e r that read: "I found y o u r w o r k witty a n d original, a n d I a m taking p a r t s of [it] for . . . Tikkun. I have to say I a m not fond of the w a y y o u write a b o u t w o m e n , b u t I have left out those parts. W h e n I blot o u t those p a r t s , I like w h a t you are d o i n g . " Gorenberg's first i m p u l s e was to search his poetry for the "criminal stanzas," a l t h o u g h h e could find n o t h i n g in his writing that struck h i m as sexist: "And t h e n I realize that the inquisitor is succeeding admirably: T h e very vagueness of the charge has driven m e to search for m y sins, incriminate myself, c o n f e s s . " G o r e n b e r g s a w that the blotting h a d larger implications a n d described it in a n o p - e d c o l u m n for the New York Times. It was published along w i t h a rebuttal b y Piercy. Piercy was indignant: "1 try to pick the best w o r k that c o m e s t h r o u g h the m a i l b o x — a n d the best has to consider the implications of the language used a n d the sensitivities of m a n y groups, including w o m e n . W h y w o u l d I p u b l i s h w o r k that degrades m e ? " Piercy defends a censorship that she herself has never been subjected to. W e m a y imagine h e r outrage if an editor h a d tried to blot out any part of h e r novel Women on the Edge of Time for its treatment of traditional 37

38

39

40

4 1

THE

GENDER

WARDENS

269

family values. She there described a g e n d e r feminist Utopia in w h i c h b o t h w o m e n a n d m e n are able to bear children a n d to nurse. It is unfortunate that Ms. Piercy's concern for liberating w o m e n from biological constraints is not m a t c h e d by a passionate regard for free expression. Established a n d successful writers have n o t found it too difficult to resist the g e n d e r feminist pressures. Younger writers are m o r e vulnerable. In 1992, Pam H o u s t o n published a collection of critically esteemed short stories entitled Cowboys Are My Weakness. Some of her female characters "have a susceptibility to a certain k i n d of emotionally unavailable m a n , " a n d Ms. H o u s t o n , w h o gives w o r k s h o p s to other y o u n g writers, often finds herself in the line of fire from feminists w h o are convinced she is doing great h a r m to the c a u s e . D u r i n g o n e of her o p e n i n g sessions, she was confronted by a w o m a n w h o asked, " H o w can you take responsibility for p u t t i n g stories like these o u t in the world?" H o u s t o n p o i n t s out that her feminist critics "confuse fiction with self-help literature." Because she writes as she does, Ms. H o u s t o n receives hate mail, harass­ ing p h o n e calls, a n d threats. She tells of other writers like herself, y o u n g a n d old, w h o feel compelled to "apologize for their female characters if they were anything short of a m a z o n i a n . . . if their character was 'only a waitress,' sorry if she stayed at h o m e a n d took care of the kids . . . sorry if she failed at the bar, or lost her keys, or loved a m a n . " H o u s t o n w a r n s that with "Big Sister" watching, w o m e n seem n o t to be "grant[ing] o n e another the right to tell the story of their o w n experience." She believes "the pressure w o m e n are p u t t i n g o n each other" to be " m o r e insidious a n d far h a r d e r to resist t h a n the pressure m e n have used to try to silence w o m e n for centuries." Indeed, she says, "in 1994, w o m e n are silencing each other a n d w e are doing it so effectively that w e are even silencing ourselves." In s o m e ways, the art w o r l d offers even better prospects than literature for an ideologically correct censorious revisionism. A recent exhibit at N e w York's W h i t n e y M u s e u m Sixty-Seventh Biennial presented exam­ ples of art that is acceptably didactic in celebrating " w o m e n ' s rage." O n e w o r k by Sue Williams explains itself: "The art w o r l d can suck m y p r o ­ verbial . . . ," w h i c h the catalog says "wrenches painting away from its white male d o m a i n . " Two w o r k s express the artist's fury over w o m e n ' s vulnerability to eating disorders: o n e consists of a large a m o u n t of plastic vomit o n the floor; the other, called "Gnaw," consists of two s i x - h u n d r e d p o u n d cubes of chocolate a n d lard with the artist's teeth m a r k s in t h e m . Another installation contains three casts of a larynx a n d tongue, w h i c h we are m e a n t to take as the remains of a mutilated w o m a n , a n d is accom­ panied by s o u n d s of w o m e n ' s laughter a n d crying. T h e casts are m a d e 42

43

270

W H O

STOLE

FEMINISM?

o u t of lipstick, to represent, as the catalog explains, "the silencing of w o m e n t h r o u g h the use of a specifically gendered m a t e r i a l . " Political art freely created can b e exciting. But art w r o u g h t u n d e r the constraint of a political ideology is at best boring a n d at worst dreadful. T h a t m u c h is k n o w n from the history of "socialist realism," long a blight o n Soviet literature a n d art. T h e m o r e serious constraints, however, d o n o t c o m e in w h a t is p r o d u c e d b u t in w h a t is c h o k e d off. Elizabeth Broun, director of the Smithsonian National M u s e u m of American Art, i n v o k e d "two decades of feminist writing" as s u p p o r t for h e r decision to r e m o v e from a n exhibit a w o r k of Sol LeWitt that she d e e m e d "degrading a n d offensive." T h e offending w o r k was described by the New York Times: 44

It consists of a black box, a b o u t o n e foot tall, one foot deep a n d eight feet long, across the front of w h i c h 10 tiny holes have been drilled. T h e inside of the b o x is illuminated to reveal a series of p h o t o g r a p h s visible t h r o u g h the holes. The p h o t o g r a p h s depict a n u d e w o m a n m o v i n g t o w a r d the viewer, beginning with a distant grainy image of h e r entire b o d y a n d concluding with a closeup of her navel. 45

Sol LeWitt h a d m a d e the exhibit to h o n o r the pioneer p h o t o g r a p h e r E a d w e a r d M u y b r i d g e . T h e little holes were references to the openings in Muybridge's multiple cameras, w h i c h gave the illusion of motion before the era of m o t i o n pictures. Ms. Broun saw it otherwise. "Peering t h r o u g h successive p e e p h o l e s a n d focusing increasingly on the p u b i c region in­ vokes u n e q u i v o c a l references to a degrading p o r n o g r a p h i c experience. I c a n n o t in g o o d conscience offer this experience to o u r visitors as a mean­ ingful a n d i m p o r t a n t o n e . " After a protest, Le Witt's piece was reinstated. Unfortunately, the great Spanish artist Francisco d e Goya did not meet w i t h s u c h l u c k at Pennsylvania State University. Nancy Stumhofer, an instructor in the English d e p a r t m e n t , took offense at a reproduction of the Goya p a i n t i n g The Naked Maja, which, along with reproductions of several other E u r o p e a n paintings, h a d h u n g in her classroom longer than a n y o n e could r e m e m b e r . Ms. Stumhofer t u r n e d to Bonnie Ortiz, a harass­ m e n t officer at the college. Together they filed formal harassment charges against those responsible for the presence of the painting for creating "a chilling e n v i r o n m e n t . " In justifying her action, Ms. Stumhofer said, "I'm fighting for h u m a n rights, for the ability to have a classroom w h e r e all of m y s t u d e n t s are c o m f o r t a b l e . " T h e liaison committee of the Penn State 4 6

47

THE

GENDER

271

WARDENS

Commission o n W o m e n found in Ms. Stumhofer's favor: Goya's p a i n t i n g has been removed. It does n o t take m u c h to chill an e n v i r o n m e n t . Chris Robison, a grad­ uate s t u d e n t at the University of Nebraska, h a d placed on his desk a small p h o t o g r a p h of his wife at the beach wearing a bikini. T w o of his office mates, b o t h female graduate s t u d e n t s in psychology, d e m a n d e d h e re­ move it because "it created a hostile w o r k e n v i r o n m e n t . " 1 talked w i t h Mr. a n d Mrs. Robison, w h o told m e that at first they t h o u g h t the w o m e n were kidding. But then the offended office mates m a d e it clear to Mr. Robison that "the p h o t o conveyed a message a b o u t [his] attitude toward w o m e n " that they did n o t a p p r o v e of. T h e d e p a r t m e n t chair, Professor J o h n Berman, took the w o m e n ' s side, warning that female s t u d e n t s w h o c a m e into the office could b e offended. Mr. Robison r e m o v e d his wife's picture from his desk, telling the local newspaper, "I c a n n o t risk the very real consequences of p u t t i n g the p h o t o u p again." T h e charge of offending by creating a hostile or "intimidating" environ­ m e n t is n o w being m a d e with great frequency, a n d , almost always, those accused retreat, for they k n o w they c a n n o t d e p e n d o n s u p p o r t from those in authority. Never m i n d that s u c h a charge usually creates a hostile, intimidating, or "chilling" e n v i r o n m e n t of its o w n or that they could have used less confrontational ways of dealing w i t h an uncomfortable situation — s u c h as calling the buildings a n d g r o u n d s d e p a r t m e n t to have an u n ­ w a n t e d painting removed. Making a case of it p u t s everyone o n notice that feminist sensibilities, n o matter h o w precious or o d d , are n o t to b e trifled with. The "hostile e n v i r o n m e n t " created by those w h o are hypersensitive to every possible offense is n o longer strictly an academic p h e n o m e n o n . W e are beginning to see it in the m u s e u m s , in the press (witness the Boston Globe w i t h its " W o m e n on the Verge"), a n d in m a n y a workplace, w h e r e the employers are practicing defensive suppression of i n n o c e n t behavior in fear that it could b e considered h a r a s s m e n t by litigious feminists. For the time being, however, the "chill" of rectitude is still m o s t intense on the m o d e r n American c a m p u s , w h e r e cadres of well-trained zealots from the feminist classrooms are vengefully poised to find sexism in every cranny of their environment. O n e of the precious a n d fragile things that wither in the hostile a n d intolerant climate of feminist rectitude is artistic creativity. The attack on art by self-righteous s t u d e n t s has b e g u n to cause alarm in quarters that are usually sympathetic to g e n d e r feminist concerns. Liza M u n d y , writing in the Fall 1 9 9 3 issue of Lingua Franca, reports o n the 48

272

W H O

STOLE

FEMINISM?

s h o c k i n g successes that s t u d e n t s , affronted by the art on their campuses, have h a d in censoring it. At the University of N o r t h Carolina, feminist students took offense at a s c u l p t u r e called The Student Body, by Julia Balk. It consists of several s t u d e n t s walking across c a m p u s — a male has his a r m a r o u n d a female, a n d h e is reading a b o o k ; she is eating an apple. Students organized a C o m m i t t e e Against Offensive Statues a n d were able to p e r s u a d e the chan­ cellor, Paul H a r d i n , to m o v e the w o r k to an out-of-the-way place where n o o n e w o u l d b e forced to see i t . At Colgate University, a mix of s t u d e n t s a n d faculty successfully challenged the exhibition of n u d e p h o ­ tographs by o n e of America's p r e m i e r p h o t o g r a p h e r s , Lee Friedlander. At the University of Arizona, e n o u g h s t u d e n t s d e n o u n c e d the n u d e selfp h o t o s of g r a d u a t e s t u d e n t Laurie Blakeslee to cause their removal. The University of Pittsburgh b a n n e d a n u d e painting from last year's open exhibit of s t u d e n t art at the insistence of an all-female panel, w h o con­ sidered it obscene a n d sexually offensive. Anthropologist Carol Vance of C o l u m b i a University is u n h a p p y a b o u t these acts of censorship. As she told Liza M u n d y , " W h a t m a y strike m e as sexist might n o t strike you as sexist." She finds fault w i t h the administrations for caving in: "Adminis­ trations that really s h o w inertia w h e n it comes to addressing the p r o b l e m of sexism a n d so on, will s n a p to w h e n s o m e o n e says that a film or w o r k of art is offensive. . . . It's a relatively inexpensive way for an administra­ tion to s h o w its c o n c e r n . " 49

50

At the University of Michigan, w h e r e Catharine MacKinnon inspires censorship, the s t u d e n t s simply r e m o v e d a videotape they regarded as offensive from a n exhibit b y the artist Carol Jacobsen. Jacobsen then d e m a n d e d that they either censor the w h o l e thing or replace the tape. After m e e t i n g w i t h M a c K i n n o n a n d her fellow anti-pornography crusader Andrea D w o r k i n , t h e s t u d e n t s w e n t into a n o t h e r r o o m a n d then "inde­ p e n d e n t l y " a s k e d J a c o b s e n to take d o w n the entire exhibit. MacKinnon is a d a m a n t a b o u t t h e n e e d for feminist m o n i t o r i n g of art a n d makes n o b o n e s a b o u t h e r o w n insight a n d expertise into w h a t cannot pass muster: " W h a t you n e e d is p e o p l e w h o see t h r o u g h literature like Andrea Dwor­ kin, w h o see t h r o u g h law like m e , to see t h r o u g h art a n d create the u n c o m p r o m i s e d w o m e n ' s visual v o c a b u l a r y . " C o m m e n t i n g on the "deafening silence" of the Michigan faculty, Carol Vance suggested that "no o n e w a n t e d to cross Catharine MacKinnon." 51

W i t h g e n d e r m o n i t o r s in a position of influence, the m o r e creative writers a n d artists are s h u n t e d aside. T h e effect on novices a n d the unrec­ ognized is especially serious. H o w m a n y w o r k s are u n p u b l i s h e d (or u n ­ written) o u t of fear of offending the feminist sensibilities of funders,

THE

GENDER

WARDENS

273

curators, editors, a n d other g e n d e r w a r d e n s inside a n d outside the academy? H o w m a n y paintings are u n e x h i b i t e d (or u n p a i n t e d ) , h o w m a n y lyrics u n r e c o r d e d (or u n s u n g ) ? Artists n e e d courage, b u t ideological intimidation deeply affects a n d inhibits creativity. T h e g o v e r n m e n t could help if it u n d e r s t o o d the p r o b l e m . But far from discouraging the cultural apparatchiks, the g o v e r n m e n t m a y s o o n b e " e m p o w e r i n g " t h e m b y offering federal s u p p o r t for m o n i t o r s of "gender equity" in every school a n d every workplace. Such m o n i t o r s are already strongly e n t r e n c h e d in o u r cultural institutions, a n d there they will continue to h o l d sway until their p o w e r is challenged. But w h o will challenge them? T h e a n s w e r to that question transcends the politics of liberalism a n d conservatism. Too often, those w h o find fault with the intolerance of the feminist ideologues are tarred as rightwing reactionaries. It is true that "the right" has t e n d e d to b e m o r e alarmed a b o u t the censoriousness of the "liberal" left. But there are relatively few conservatives in o u r educational institutions a n d cultural temples, a n d it w o u l d be m o s t unrealistic to c o u n t o n t h e m to b e very effective in c o m b a t t i n g g e n d e r feminism. Nor, if w e j u d g e by the sorry record of their faintheartedness in the academic world, s h o u l d w e c o u n t on intellectual m e n to engage the g e n d e r feminists in o p e n battle. So the unpleasant b u t necessary task of confrontation falls to w o m e n w h o believe in free expression a n d w h o scorn those w h o w o u l d stifle it. Such w o m e n waged a n d w o n the battle for the suffrage a n d for all the basic rights American w o m e n n o w enjoy. Such w o m e n are still in the majority, b u t out of a lack of awareness of the extent of the p r o b l e m or a reluctance to criticize their zealous sisters, they have r e m a i n e d silent. T h e price has been g r e a t — t h e ideologues have m a d e off w i t h the w o m e n ' s m o v e m e n t . It w o u l d be difficult to exaggerate the extent of the difficulties w e n o w face. T h e g e n d e r feminists have p r o v e d very adroit in getting financial s u p p o r t from governmental a n d private sources. They h o l d the keys to m a n y bureaucratic fiefdoms, research centers, w o m e n s ' studies p r o g r a m s , tenure committees, a n d para-academic organizations. It is n o w virtually impossible to b e a p p o i n t e d to high administrative office in any university system w i t h o u t having passed m u s t e r with the g e n d e r feminists. If bills that are n o w before Congress pass, there will b e paid g e n d e r m o n i t o r s in every p r i m a r y a n d secondary school in the c o u n t r y a n d harassment officers in every secondary school a n d college. N o r will this p h e n o m e n o n b e restricted to schools; experts on harassment will b e n e e d e d to m o n i t o r the workplace. Needless to say, the only available "experts" are g e n d e r feminists w h o s e very raison d'être is to find m o r e a n d m o r e abuse. Moreover, the g e n d e r feminists will c o n t i n u e to d o everything in their

274

W H O

STOLE

FEMINISM?

p o w e r to e n s u r e that their patronage goes to w o m e n of the right con­ sciousness. A n d , it m u s t b e acknowledged, they have certain inherent advantages over the m a i n s t r e a m . N o w that it has overthrown most of the legal i m p e d i m e n t s to w o m e n ' s rights, equity feminism is n o longer gal­ vanizing: it d o e s n o t p r o d u c e fanatics. Moderates in general are not tem­ peramentally suited to activism. They tend to b e reflective a n d individualistic. T h e y d o n o t network. They d o n o t rally. They d o not recruit. T h e y d o n o t threaten their o p p o n e n t s w i t h loss of j o b s or loss of patronage. T h e y are n o t especially litigious. In short, they have so far b e e n n o m a t c h politically for the g e n d e r warriors. O n the o t h e r h a n d , the m a i n s t r e a m feminists are only just becoming aware of the fact that the Faludis a n d the Steinems speak in the n a m e of w o m e n but do not represent them. W i t h the n e w awareness that the femi­ nist leaders a n d theorists are patronizing t h e m , there is a very real possi­ bility that t h e m a i n s t r e a m is t h e tide of the not-too-distant future. I began the research for this b o o k in 1989. Since then, the public has learned that academic feminism has b e e n playing a leading role in p r o m o t i n g the illiberal m o v e m e n t k n o w n as " P C " in the nation's colleges. N o w it is b e g i n n i n g to realize that the N e w Feminism is socially divisive a n d that it generally lacks a constituency in the p o p u l a t i o n at large. Classical equity feminism is very m u c h alive in the hearts of American w o m e n . It is u n f o r t u n a t e that p a r t of its energies m u s t n o w be diverted to defend the w o m e n ' s m o v e m e n t from the grave threat posed to it by the g e n d e r feminist ideologues. Ironically a concerted effort to deal with the threat m a y well p r o v e revitalizing to the languishing mainstream. Getting o u t from u n d e r t h e stifling, c o n d e s c e n d i n g ministrations of the ideo­ logues is a bracing cause a n d a n exhilarating necessary step for the truly liberated w o m e n to take. W h e n e n o u g h w o m e n take it, the gender femi­ nists' lack of a constituency a m o n g American w o m e n will be exposed, a n d their p o w e r s t r u c t u r e will n o t survive. Inside the academy, it w o u l d take only a courageous few to launch the l o n g - o v e r d u e critique that will p u n c t u r e the intellectual affectations of the g e n d e r feminists. O p e n criticism of an academic feminism that has s u b o r d i n a t e d scholarship to ideology w o u l d quickly halt the pretentious c a m p a i g n to "transform the k n o w l e d g e base" a n d eventually open the d o o r s to m o r e representative, less doctrinaire, a n d m o r e capable w o m e n scholars in the w o m e n ' s studies p r o g r a m s . W e should then see the end of "feminist classrooms" that recruit s t u d e n t s for the m o r e extreme wing of the w o m e n ' s m o v e m e n t . O u t s i d e t h e a c a d e m y individual voices have already b e g u n to b e heard in protest, from w o m e n as diverse as Camille Paglia, Betty Friedan, Katie

THE

GENDER

WARDENS

275

Roiphe, Midge Decter, Mary Lefkowitz, Cathy Young, Erica Jong, Diane Ravitch, Karen Lehrman, a n d W e n d y Kaminer, w o m e n w h o are n o t fazed by being d e n o u n c e d as traitors a n d backlashers. W e m a y expect that m o r e a n d m o r e w o m e n will b e expressing their frustration a n d a n n o y a n c e w i t h feminists w h o s p e a k in their n a m e b u t d o n o t share their values. W h e n that h a p p e n s , w e m a y expect that the public will b e c o m e alert to w h a t the gender feminists stand for; their influence s h o u l d then decline precip­ itously. For s o m e time to come, the gender m o n i t o r s will still be t h e r e — in the schools, in the feminist centers, in the w o r k p l a c e — b u t , increas­ ingly, their intrusions will n o t b e welcome. T h e reader of this b o o k m a y w o n d e r w h e t h e r there is anything I like about the gender feminists. I have sat a m o n g t h e m in m a n y a gathering a n d have occasionally found myself in relaxed agreement with t h e m . For I d o like the features they share w i t h classical feminism: a concern for w o m e n a n d a determination to see t h e m fairly treated. W e very m u c h need that concern a n d energy, b u t w e decidedly d o n o t n e e d their militant gynocentrism a n d misandrism. It's too b a d that in the case of the g e n d e r feminists w e can't have the concern w i t h o u t the rest of the baggage. I believe, however, that once their ideology b e c o m e s unfashionable, m a n y a gender feminist will quietly divest herself of the sex/gender lens t h r o u g h which she n o w views social reality a n d j o i n the equity feminist m a i n ­ stream. I d o n o t t h i n k this will h a p p e n t o m o r r o w , b u t I a m convinced it will h a p p e n . Credos a n d intellectual fashions c o m e a n d go b u t feminism itself—the p u r e a n d w h o l e s o m e article first displayed at Seneca Falls in 1 8 4 8 — i s as American as apple pie, a n d it will stay.

Notes

Preface 1. Gloria Steinem, Revolution from Within: A Book of Self-Esteem (Boston: Little, Brown, 1992), p. 222. 2. Naomi Wolf, The Beauty Myth: How Images of Beauty Are Used Against Women (New York: Doubleday, 1992), pp. 1 8 0 - 8 2 . 3. Ibid., p. 207. 4. Joan Jacobs Brumberg, Fasting Girls: The Emergence of Anorexia Nervosa as a Modern Disease (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1988), pp. 19-20. 5. Ibid., p. 33. 6. FDA Consumer, May 1986 and March 1992. The report is based on figures provided by the National Center of Health Statistics (NCHS). 7. Ann Landers, "Women and Distorted Body Images," Boston Globe, April 29, 1992. 8. Wolf sent me a copy of a letter that she had written to her editors, which said, "I have . . . learned that the statistic, taken from Brumberg's Fasting Girls and provided to her by the American Anorexia and Bulimia Association, is not accurate. Please let me know how to correct this error in future editions:" 9. Wolf, The Beauty Myth, p. 208. 10. Cheris Kramarae and Dale Spender, eds., The Knowledge Explosion: Generations of Feminist Scholarship (New York: Teachers College Press, Columbia University, 1992), p. 15.

NOTES

277

11. Women's Studies Network (Internet: L I S T S E R V @ U M D D . U M D . E D U ) , November 4, 1992. 12. Time, December 6, 1993, p. 10. 13. Ms. Buel has taken a leave from the Suffolk County office to return to Harvard. She is now a fellow at the Bunting Institute, a feminist research center at Radcliffe College. 14. Tracing it further, I found that Esta Soler, the executive director of the Family Violence Prevention Foundation, repeated Buel's claim in a 1990 grant application. She had given that grant application to Time writer McDowell, who relied on it in making the claim about the March of Dimes. That was it: it had gone from White­ head's introductory remark, to Sarah Buel's unpublished manuscript, to the domestic violence people, to the Globe and Time, then to all the rest of the newspapers. 15. Boston Globe, January 29, 1993, p. 16. 16. Ken Ringle, Washington Post, January 31, 1993, p. Al. 17. Louis Harris and Associates, "Commonwealth Fund Survey on Women's Health" (New York: Commonwealth Fund, 1993), p. 8. 18. Reported in Time, March 9, 1992, p. 54. 19. Los Angeles Times Magazine, February 2, 1992. See also In View: Issues and Insights for College Women 1, no. 3 (September-October 1989).

Chapter 1: Women Under Siege 1. Winifred Holtby, "Feminism Divided," in Modern Feminisms, ed. Maggie Humm (New York: Columbia University Press, 1992), p. 42. 2. Marilyn French, The War Against Women (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1992). Heilbrun is quoted on the jacket cover. 3. Anne Mathews, "Rage in a Tenured Position," New York Times Magazine, November 8, 1992, p. 47. 4. Ibid., p. 72. 5. Chronicle of Higher Education, November 11, 1992, p. A18. 6. Ibid.,p.A17. 7. Pauline Bart's comments were made in the context of notifying women's studies teachers about the New York Times story on Carolyn Heilbrun and her trials at Columbia. The text appears on the Women's Studies Network (Internet: L I S T S E R V @ U M D D . U M D . E D U ) , November 9, 1992. 8. The Heilbrun conference is on videotape. The tape is available through the women's studies program at the CUNY Graduate Center. 9. The Elizabeth Cady Stanton-Susan B. Anthony Reader, ed. Ellen Carol Dubois (Boston: Northeastern University Press, 1992), p. 51. 10. Sandra Lee Bartky, Femininity and Domination: Studies in the Phenomenology of Oppres­ sion (New York: Routledge, 1990), p. 50. Bartky is relying on the work of the feminist anthropologist Gayle Rubin, who was among the first to speak of the "sex/gender system." Here is Rubin's definition: "While particular socio-sexual systems vary, each one is specific and individuals within it will have to conform to a finite set of possibilities. Each new generation must learn and become its sexual destiny, each person must be encoded with its appropriate status within the system." From Gayle Rubin, "The Traffic in Women," in Rayna Reiter, ed., Toward an Anthropology of Women (New York: Monthly Review Press, 1975), p. 161. 11. Kate Millett, Sexual Politics (New York: Ballantine Books, 1970). The quoted passage is taken from the back cover.

278

NOTES

12. Alison M. Jaggar, Feminist Politics and Human Nature (Totowa, N.J.: Rowman and Littlefield, 1988), p. 148. 13. Iris Marion Young, 'Throwing like a Girl" and Other Essays in Feminist Philosophy and Social Theory (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1990), p. 93. 14. Iris Marion Young, "Humanism, Gynocentrism, and Feminist Politics," in ibid., p. 73. 15. Andrea Nye, Feminist Theory and the Philosophies of Man (New York: Routledge, 1988), p. 23. 16. Holtby, "Feminism Divided," p. 42. 17. Catharine A. MacKinnon, New York Times, December 15, 1991, p. 11. 18. Harvard Crimson, December 13, 1989. 19. Virginia Held, "Feminism and Epistemology: Recent Work on the Connection be­ tween Gender and Knowledge," Philosophy and Public Affairs 14, no. 3 (Summer 1985): 296. 20. Ibid., p. 297. 21. Kathryn Allen Rabuzzi, Motherself: A Mythic Analysis of Motherhood (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1988) p. 1. 22. Bartky, Femininity and Domination, p. 27. 23. Marilyn French, The War Against Women (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1992), p. 163. 24. Janet Radcliffe Richards, The Skeptical Feminist: A Philosophical Enquiry (Middlesex, England: Penguin Books, 1980), p. 323. 25. Susan McClary, "Getting Down off the Beanstalk: The Presence of Woman's Voice in Janika Vandervelde's Genesis 11," Minnesota Composers' Forum Newsletter (January 1987). 26. Naomi Wolf, "A Woman's Place," New York Times, May 31, 1992. Ms. Wolfs piece was a shortened version of a commencement speech she had just delivered to the Scripps College class of 1992. 27. Ibid. 28. Letters to the editor, New York Times, June 12, 1992. 29. The 1992 NWSA conference in Austin was both audiotaped and videotaped. The tapes are available through the NWSA office at the University of Maryland in College Park, Maryland. 30. For an account of past NWSA conferences see Carol Sternhell's review of Gloria Steinem's Revolution from Within, in Women's Review of Books 9, no. 9 (June 1992): 5. 31. Alice Rossi, ed., The Feminist Papers: From Adams to de Beauvoir (New York: Columbia University Press, 1993), p. 413. 32. Ibid., p. 414. 33. Ibid. 34. Ibid., p. 415. 35. Ibid., p. 416. 36. Elisabeth Griffith, In Her Own Right: The Life of Elizabeth Cady Stanton (New York: Oxford University Press, 1984), p. 159. 37. Historian Elisabeth Griffith reports that some scholars believe that it was Richard Hunt who came up with the idea of a women's rights conference. See ibid., p. 52. 38. The conference, called "Taking the Lead: Balancing the Educational Equation," was cosponsored by Mills College and the American Association of University Women (AAUW). It took place October 2 3 - 2 5 , 1992, at Mills College. The program is

NOTES

279

available through the AAUW's Washington office. I attended the conference with my sister, Louise Hoff, and with journalist Barbara Rhoades Ellis. See also Ms. Ellis's entertaining and insightful "Pod People Infest AAUW," an account of the Mills con­ ference, in Heterodoxy, December 1992. Ms. Ellis's article includes my description of its "Perils of Feminist Teaching" workshop. 39. David Gurevich, "Lost in Translation," American Spectator, August 1991, pp. 2 8 - 2 9 . 40. Gurevich notes that he had no trouble translating these parts of Ms. Kauffman's speech: "Her clichés have perfect Russian equivalents, finessed over the past seventy years."

Chapter 2: Indignation, Resentment, and Collective Guilt 1. Boston Globe, April 30, 1992, p. 29. 2. Sandra Lee Bartky, Femininity and Domination: Studies in the Phenomenology of Oppres­ sion (New York: Routledge, 1990), p. 15. 3. Daily Hampshire Gazette, March 18, 1992. 4. Marilyn French, The War Against Women (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1992), p. 182. 5. Ibid. 6. Ibid., p. 199. 7. Diana Scully, on the Women's Studies Network (Internet: L I S T S E R V @ U M D D . U M D . E D U ) , January 27, 1993. See also her book, Understanding Sexual Violence (New York: Routledge, 1990). 8. Time, June 3, 1991, p. 52. 9. Story reported in the Washington Times, May 7, 1993. 10. Ms. magazine, September/October 1993, p. 94. Cited in Daniel Wattenberg, "Sharia Feminists," in American Spectator, December 1993, p. 60. 11. Vanity Fair, November, 1993, p. 170; quoted in ibid., from Kim Masters, Vanity Fair, November 1993. 12. Wattenberg, "Sharia Feminists," p. 62. 13. Ruth Shalit, "Romper Room: Sexual Harassment—by Tots," New Republic, March 29, 1993, p. 14. 14. Nan Stein, "Secrets in Public: Sexual Harassment in Public (and Private) Schools," working paper no. 256 (Wellesley, Mass.: Wellesley College Center for Research on Women, 1993), p. 4. 15. Shalit, "Romper Room," p. 13. 16. Lionel Tiger, Newsday, October 15, 1991. 17. Boston Phoenix, October 11, 1991, p. 14. 18. Ibid. 19. Ibid., p. 21. 20. Ibid., April 16, 1993. 21. The full account of the Nyhan affair is to be found in ibid. See also Joe Queenan, "What's New Pussy-Whipped?" in GQ, August 1993, p. 144. See also "Fighting Words," The New Yorker, May 3, 1993, p. 34.

Chapter 3: Transforming the Academy 1. Joyce Trebilcot, ed., Mothering: Essays in Feminist Theory (Totowa, N.J.: Rowman and Allanheld, 1984), p. vii.

280

NOTES

2. Copies of the Women's Studies Constitution are available through the National Wom­ en's Studies Association, University of Maryland, College Park. 3. Carolyn Heilbrun, "Feminist Criticism in Departments of Literature," Academe, Sep­ tember-October 1983, p. 14. Elaine Marks, Nannerl Keohane, and Elizabeth Minnich have also given enthu­ siastic support to the comparison between the discoveries made in women's studies and those of Copernicus and Darwin. See Elaine Marks, "Deconstructing in Women's Studies to Reconstructing the Humanities," Marilyn R. Schuster and Susan R. Van Dyne, eds., in Women's Place in the Academy: Transforming the Liberal Arts Curriculum (Totowa, N.J.: Rowman and Allanheld, 1985), p. 174. Nannerl Keohane made the comparison in her address "Challenges for the Future" at the June 15, 1992, confer­ ence at Radcliffe College entitled "In the Eye of the Storm: Feminist Research and Action in the Nineties." Elizabeth Minnich makes it as well: "What we [feminists] are doing is comparable to Copernicus shattering our geo-centricity, Darwin shattering our species-centricity. We are shattering andro-centricity, and the change is as fun­ damental, as dangerous, as exciting." Keynote address, "The Feminist Academy," reprinted in Proceedings of Great Lakes Women's Studies Association, November 1979, p. 7. 4. Gerda Lerner, quoted in Chronicle of Higher Education, September 28, 1988, p. 7. 5. Jessie Bernard in the foreword to Angela Simeone, Academic Women (South Hadley, Mass.: Bergin and Garvey, 1987), pp. xii and xiii. 6. Ms. magazine, October 1985, p. 50. 7. Ann Ferguson, "Feminist Teaching: A Practice Developed in Undergraduate Courses," Radical Teacher, April 1982, p. 28. 8. "Access to Resources" (Towson, Md.: Towson State University, National Clearing­ house for Curriculum Transformation Resources, April 1993), p. 7. 9. Caryn McTighe Musil, The Courage to Question: Women's Studies and Student Learning (Washington, D.C.: Association of American Colleges, 1992), p. 3. 10. Louise Bernikow, introduction to The World Split Open: Four Centuries of Women Poets in England and America, 1552-1950 (New York: Random House, 1974), p. 3. 11. Géraldine Ruthchild, "The Best Feminist Criticism Is a New Criticism," in Feminist Pedagogy and the Learning Climate: Proceedings of the Ninth Annual Great Lakes Colleges Association Women's Studies Conference (Ann Arbor, Mich.: Great Lakes Colleges As­ sociation, 1983), p. 34. 12. Gerda Lerner, The Creation of Patriarchy (New York: Oxford University Press, 1986), p. 224. 13. Ibid., p. 225. 14. "Evaluating Courses for Inclusion of New Scholarship on Women" (Washington D.C.: Association of American Colleges, May 1988), p. 1. 15. The AAUW Report: How Schools Shortchange Girls (Washington, D.C.: American As­ sociation of University Women Educational Foundation, 1992), p. 63. 16. Leonard C. Wood et al., America: Its People and Values (Dallas: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1985), pp. 145, 170, 509, 701. See also Daniel Boorstin and Brooks Mather Kelley, A History of the United States (Lexington, Mass.: Ginn, 1986). 17. Elizabeth Kamarck Minnich, Transforming Knowledge (Philadelphia: Temple Univer­ sity Press, 1990), p. 133. 18. Boorstin and Kelley, A History of the United States. Example cited in Robert Lerner, Althea K. Nagai, and Stanley Rothman, "Filler Feminism in High School History,"

NOTES

19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24.

25. 26. 27.

281

Academic Questions 5, no. 1 (Winter 1991-92): 34. For a frank but sympathetic biography of Anne Morrow Lindbergh, see Dorothy Herrmann, Anne Morrow Lind­ bergh (New York: Penguin, 1993). Lerner, Nagai, and Rothman, "Filler Feminism in High School History," p. 29. American Voices, ed. Carol Berkin, Alan Brinkly, et al. (Glenview, 111.: Scott Freedman, 1992), p. 18. Gilbert Sewall, Social Studies Review (New York: American Textbook Council, 1993), p. 7. Paul C. Vitz, Censorship: Evidence of Bias in Our Children's Textbooks (Ann Arbor, Mich.: Servant Books, 1986). Ibid., p. 73. Diane Ravitch and Chester E. Finn, What Do Our Seventeen-Year-Olds Know? (New York: Harper & Row, 1987). The figures cited are taken from the appendix, pp. 2 6 2 - 7 7 . Reported in the Boston Globe: "Top Students Get Low Scores in Civics," April 6, 1993, p. 3. "Standards for Evaluation of Instructional Materials with Respect to Social Content" (California State Department of Education, 1986), p. 2. Peggy Means Mcintosh, "Curricular Re-Vision: The New Knowledge for a New Age," in Educating the Majority: Women Challenge Tradition in Higher Education, ed. Carol Pearson, Donna Shavlik, and Judith Touchton (New York: Macmillan, 1989), p. 404. To make their point about the masculinist character of artistic and literary judgment, the transformationist revisionists almost always encase terms like masterpiece, genius, and literary canon in scare quotes.

28. Janis C. Bell, "Teaching Art History: A Strategy for the Survival of Women's Studies," in "Looking Forward: Women's Strategies for Survival," Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual Great Lakes Colleges Association (Ann Arbor, Mich.: Great Lakes Colleges Association, 1985), p. 28. 29. Ibid., p. 23. 30. Marks, "Deconstructing in Women's Studies," p. 178. 31. Quoted in Minnich, Transforming Knowledge, p. 27. 32. Peggy Mcintosh, keynote address, "Seeing Our Way Clear: Feminist Re-Vision of the Academy," Proceedings of the Eighth Annual Great Lakes Colleges Association Women's Studies Conference (Ann Arbor, Mich.: Great Lakes Colleges Association, 1983), p. 8. 33. Boston Globe, June 30, 1991. 34. "Transforming the Knowledge Base: A Panel Discussion at the National Network of Women's Caucuses" (New York: National Council for Research on Women, 1990), p. 4. Minnich's attack on the ancient Greeks reminded me of my own more traditional introduction to "The Greeks." When I was in high school, my mother gave me Edith Hamilton's The Greek Way. It inspired in me a great interest in philosophy and classical art. Today, the many pedagogues who follow the Minnich line protect high school girls from such books. 35. Minnich, Transforming Knowledge, p. 113. 36. Joyce Trebilcot, "Dyke Methods," Hypatia: A Journal of Feminist Philosophy 3, no. 2 (Summer 1988): 3. 37. "Feminist Scholarship Guidelines," distributed by the New Jersey Project (Wayne, N.J.: William Paterson College, 1991).

282

NOTES

38. Catharine MacKinnon, "Feminism, Marxism, Method, and the State," in Signs (Sum­ mer 1993): 636. 39. Sandra Harding, The Science Question in Feminism (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1986), p. 113. 40. Mary Field Belenky, Blythe McVicker Clinchy, Nancy Rule Goldberger, and Jill Mattuck Tarule, Women's Ways of Knowing (New York: Basic Books, 1986), p. 104. 41. Ibid. 42. Ibid., p. 113. 43. Peggy Mcintosh, "Seeing Our Way Clear: Feminist Revision and the Academy," Proceedings of the Eighth Annual GLCA Women's Studies Conference (Ann Arbor, Mich.: Great Lakes Colleges Association, November 5 - 7 , 1982), p. 13. 44. Dr. Mcintosh outlined her five-phase theory in a 1990 workshop for the public school teachers and staff in Brookline, Massachusetts, which was videotaped by the Brookline School Department and is available through that office. 45. Peggy Mcintosh, "Interactive Phases of Curricular and Personal Re-Vision with Regard to Race," working paper no. 219 (Wellesley, Mass.: Wellesley College Center for Research on Women, 1990), p. 6. 46. Mcintosh, working paper no. 124, p. 11. 47. Workshop, Brookline, Massachusetts, 1990 (see note 44 above). 48. Mcintosh, working paper no. 219, p. 5. 49. Ibid., no. 124, p. 7. 50. Ibid., p. 10. 51. Ibid., no. 219, p. 10. 52. Ibid. 53. Ibid., p. 11. 54. Ibid., p. 6. 55. Ibid., no. 124, p. 21. 56. Schuster and Van Dyne, Women's Place in the Academy, p. 26. 57. All the quotations concerning Dean Stimpson's "Dream Curriculum" are from Cath­ arine R. Stimpson, "Is There a Core in Their Curriculum? And Is It Really Necessary?" Change (March-April 1988): 2 7 - 3 1 . 58. Ibid., p. 30. 59. Linda Gardiner, "Can This Discipline Be Saved? Feminist Theory Challenges Main­ stream Philosophy," working paper no. 118 (Wellesley, Mass.: Wellesley College Center for Research on Women, 1983), p. 4. 60. Ibid., p. 12. 61. Evelyn Fox Keller, Reflections on Gender and Science (New Haven, Conn.: Yale Univer­ sity Press, 1985), p. 174. 62. Ibid., p. 175. 63. Ibid., p. 173. 64. Interview with Meg Urry of the Space Telescope and Science Institute, "CNN Head­ line News," June 14, 1993, 9:55 P.M. 65. Sue Rosser, "Integrating the Feminist Perspective into Courses in Introductory Biol­ ogy," in Schuster and Van Dyne, Women's Place in the Academy, p. 263. 66. Ibid., p. 267. 67. Harding, The Science Question in Feminism, p. 251. 68. Margarita Levin, "Caring New World: Feminism and Science," American Scholar (Winter 1988): 105.

NOTES

283

Chapter 4: New Epistemologies 1. See, for example, Nancy Hartsock, "The Feminist Standpoint: Developing the Ground for a Specifically Feminist Historical Materialism," in Sandra Harding and Merrill B. Hintikka, eds., Discovering Reality: Feminist Perspectives on Epistemology, Metaphysics, Methodology, and Philosophy of Science (Dordrecht, Holland: D. Reidel, 1983), p. 284, cited in Feminist Epistemologies, ed. Linda Alcoff and Elizabeth Potter (New York: Routledge, 1993), p. 85; or Charlotte Bunch, "Not for Lesbians Only," in Passionate Politics: Feminist Theory in Action (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1987), pp. 2 7 9 - 3 0 9 , cited in Feminist Epistemologies. 2. Cited in Feminist Epistemologies, p. 90. 3. Virginia Held, "Feminism and Epistemology: Recent Work on the Connection be­ tween Gender and Knowledge," Philosophy and Public Affairs 14, no. 3 (Summer 1985): 299. 4. Susan Haack, "Epistemological Reflections of an Old Feminist," presented at annual meetings of the Eastern division of the American Philosophical Association, Washing­ ton, D.C. (December 1992). Sponsored by the Social Philosophy and Policy Center, Bowling Green. Haack's paper was published in Reason Papers 18 (Fall 1993): 3 1 43. 5. Ibid., p. 33. 6. Yolanda T. Moses, "The Challenge of Diversity," in Education and Urban Society 22, no. 4 (August 1990): 404. Cited in an article by Jim Sleeper in New Republic, June 28, 1993, p. 11. 7. Ibid., Education and Urban Society: 409. 8. Elizabeth Cady Stanton, "Motherhood," in Alice Rossi, ed., The Feminist Papers: From Adams to de Beauvoir (New York: Bantam Books, 1973), pp. 3 9 9 - 4 0 0 . 9. Ibid. 10. Iris Murdoch, in a private letter to me. 11. Robyn R. Warhol and Diane Price Herndl, eds., Feminisms: An Anthology of Literary Theory and Criticism (New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press, 1991), p. ix. 12. By a familiar irony, though most Christians would object to Mary being considered a goddess, none of the women who organized the conference thought that Christian sensibilities needed to be considered. 13. Peter Steinfels, "Beliefs," New York Times, May 1, 1993, p. 10. 14. Barbara Smith and Beverly Smith, "Across the Kitchen Table: A Sister-to-Sister Dia­ logue," in Cherrie Moraga and Gloria Anzaldua, eds., This Bridge Called My Back: Writings by Radical Women of Color (Watertown, Mass.: Persephone Press, 1981), p. 114. 15. Johnnella Butler called in sick. 16. Beverly Guy-Sheftall, "Consultant's Report," Ford Foundation Program on Education and Culture, March 1993, p. 11. 17. "The Monday Group," June 14, 1993. 18. Transformations 4, no. 1 (Spring 1993): 2. 19. The "historic" pamphlet "Transforming the Knowledge Base" can be ordered through the National Council for Research on Women in New York.

284

NOTES

Chapter 5: The Feminist Classroom 1. Margo Culley, Arlyn Diamond, Lee Edwards, Sara Lennox, and Catherine Portuges, "The Politics of Nurturance," in Gendered Subjects: The Dynamics of Feminist Teaching (Boston: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1985), p. 19. 2. Carole Sheffield, "Sexual Terrorism," in Women: A Feminist Perspective, ed. Jo Freeman (Mountain View, Calif.: Mayfield, 1989, p. 4). Ms. Sheffield is professor of political science at William Paterson College, where she serves as co-chair of the campus violence project. 3. The "model syllabus" can be found in Johnnella Butler, Sandra Coynes, Margaret Homans, Marlene Longenecker, and Caryn McTighe Musil, Liberal Learning and the Women's Studies Major: A Report to the Professions (Washington, D.C.: Association of American Colleges, 1991), appendix B. 4. Ibid., pp. 1 4 - 1 5 . 5. Susan S. Arpad, "The Personal Cost of the Feminist Knowledge Explosion," in Cheris Kramarae and Dale Spender, eds., The Knowledge Explosion (New York: Teachers College Press, 1992), pp. 3 3 3 - 3 4 . 6. Karen Lehrman, "Off Course," Mother Jones, September-October 1993, pp. 4 6 - 4 7 . 7. Ibid., p. 49. 8. Joyce Trebilcot, "Dyke Methods," Hypatia: A Journal of Feminist Philosophy 3, no. 2 (Summer 1988): 7. 9. Ann Ferguson, "Feminist Teaching: A Practice Developed in Undergraduate Courses," Radical Teacher (April 1982): 28. 10. Ibid., p. 29. 11. Marcia Bedard and Beth Hartung, " 'Blackboard Jungle' Revisited," Thought and Action 7, no. 1 (Spring 1991): 11. 12. Ibid., p. 9. 13. Shawn Brown's paper (October 8, 1992) for Political Science 111, University of Michigan, p. 4. 14. Letter to Michigan Review, November 5, 1992. 15. Dale M. Bauer, "The Other 'F' Word: The Feminist in the Classroom," College English 52, no. 4 (April 1990): 385. 16. Ibid., p. 387. 17. Ibid., p. 388. 18. Roger Scruton, Angela Ellis-Jones, and Dennis O'Keefe, Education and Indoctrination (London: Sherwood Press, 1985). 19. Marilyn R. Schuster and Susan R. Van Dyne, eds., Women's Place in the Academy: Transforming the Liberal Arts Curriculum (Totowa, N.J.: Rowman and Allanheld, 1985), p. 18. 20. George Orwell, 1984 (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1949), p. 205. 21. Thomas Sowell, Inside American Education: The Decline, the Deception, the Dogmas (New York: Free Press, 1993), p. 278. 22. Copies of the ground rules can be obtained through the Center for Research on Women at Memphis State University, Memphis, Tennessee. 23. Kali Tal's remarks are from the Women's Studies Network (Internet: LISTSERV@ U M D D . U M D . E D U ) , February 6, 1993. Her comments, and many others like it from other women's studies practitioners, can be found under the file heading "Classroom Disclosure." She used these rules in a course at George Mason University.

NOTES

285

24. Elizabeth Fay, "Anger in the Classroom: Women, Voice, and Fear," Radical Teacher, Fall 1992, part 2. 25. Ibid., p. 14. 26. Ibid., p. 15. 27. Ibid., p. 16. 28. Women's Review of Books, in its February 1990 issue, contains several articles by women's studies professors analyzing the phenomenon of "student resistance." 29. Minnesota Daily, March 14, 1989. 30. Ibid., April 18, 1989. 31. Ibid., April 13, 1989. 32. Flier printed in Vassar Spectator, November 1990, p. 18. 33. Carol P. Christ, "Why Women Need the Goddess," in Marilyn Pearsall, ed., Women and Values (Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth, 1986), p. 216. 34. Harriet Silius, Institute for Women's Studies, Akademi University, from Wom­ en's Studies Network (Internet: L I S T S E R V @ U M D D . U M D . E D U ) , November 20, 1992. 35. Proceedings of the Fourth Annual GLCA Women's Studies Conference (Ann Arbor, Mich.: Great Lakes Colleges Association, 1978), p. 60. 36. "Women's Studies," in Reports from the Fields (Washington, D.C.: Association of American Colleges, 1991), p. 219. 37. Racism and Sexism: An Integrated Study, ed. Paula Rothenberg (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1988). 38. Vice President Harward's address was reprinted in the college alumni magazine: Wooster 101, no. 1 (Fall 1986): 36. 39. Schuster and Van Dyne, Women's Place in the Academy, p. 5. 40. For a fuller account of the defense guard episode, see the Berkshire Eagle, February 17, 1990. 41. Lingua Franca 1, no. 1 (Fall 1990): 22. 42. Amanda Martin's opinion piece appeared in the April 5, 1993, issue of the Daily Collegian. 43. David Margolick, "Free Speech on Campus? It's a Matter of Debate," New York Times, September 24, 1993, p. A26. 44. Ibid. 45. Minnesota Daily, August 23, 1989. 46. From Nat Hentoff, "Is This Sexual Harassment?" Village Voice, December 8, 1993, p. 40. 47. Schuster and Van Dyne, Women's Place in the Academy, p. 230. 48. Modern Language Association Newsletter, Summer 1991, p. 21. 49. Toni McNaron, Women's Review of Books 9, no. 5 (February 1992): 30.

Chapter 6: A Bureaucracy of One's Own 1. Peggy Mcintosh, "Seeing Our Way Clear: Feminist Revision of the Academy," in Proceedings of the Eighth Annual GLCA Women's Studies Conference (Ann Arbor, Mich.: Great Lakes Colleges Association, 1982), p. 13. 2. Transforming the Knowledge Base (New York: National Council for Research on Women, 1990), pp. 1 1 - 1 2 .

286

NOTES

3. Ibid., p. 12. 4. Betty Schmitz, Integrating Women's Studies into the Curriculum (Old Westbury, N.Y.: Feminist Press, 1985), p. 25. 5. Betty Schmitz, "Integrating Scholarship by and about Women into the Curriculum" (Memphis, Tenn.: Memphis State University Press, 1990), pp. 1 8 - 1 9 . 6. Transforming the Knowledge Base, p. 13. 7. Schmitz, Integrating Women's Studies into the Curriculum, pp. 2 6 - 2 7 . 8. Ibid., p. 51. 9. Ibid., pp. 5 1 - 5 2 . 10. Ibid., p. 52. 11. Betty Schmitz, Myra Dinnerstein, and Nancy Mairs, "Initiating a Curriculum Integra­ tion Project: Lessons from the Campus and the Region," in Women's Place in the Academy: Transforming the Liberal Arts Curriculum, ed. Marilyn R. Schuster and Susan R. Van Dyne (Totowa, N.J.: Rowman and Allanheld, 1985), p. 121. 12. Herman Belz, "Transforming the Curriculum," Faculty Voice, University of Maryland, October 1988, p. 4. 13. Transforming the Knowledge Base, p. 12. 14. The Status of Women in Academe: System Summary, Tennessee Board of Regents, 1990, p. 26. 15. "Evaluating Courses for Inclusion of Scholarship by and about Women: A Report to the Advisory Committee for Curricular Transformation," Middle Tennessee State University, 1992. 16. "Women's Studies," in Reports from the Fields (Washington, D.C.: Association of American Colleges, 1991), pp. 2 1 1 - 1 2 . 17. Chronicle of Higher Education, March 17, 1993, p. A18. 18. Donna Shavlik, Judith Touchton, and Carol Pearson, "The New Agenda of Women for Higher Education on Education," in Educating the Majority: Women Challenge Tradition in Higher Education (New York: Macmillan, 1989), p. 448. 19. Mount Holyoke College catalogs, 1 9 8 9 - 9 2 . 20. Chronicle of Higher Education, December 7, 1988, p. A15. 21. Jim Hawkins, California Scholar, Winter 1 9 9 2 - 9 3 , p. 10. 22. Ibid., pp. 1 0 - 1 2 . 23. From memo sent to University of Minnesota faculty by Patricia Mullen, director of the Office of Equal Opportunity, and Becky Kroll, director of the Minnesota Women's Center, August 30, 1993. 24. Chronicle of Higher Education, January 17, 1990, p. A15. 25. Removing Bias: Guidelines for Student-Faculty Communication (Annandale, Va.: Speech Communication Association, 1983), p. 45. The guide was developed with support from the Women's Educational Equity Act Program of the Department of Education. 26. Caryn McTighe Musil, ed., The Courage to Question: Women's Studies and Student Learning (Washington, D.C.: Association of American Colleges, 1992), p. 2. 27. Beverly Guy-Sheftall, "Consultant's Report," Ford Foundation Program on Education and Culture, March 1992, pp. 1 0 - 1 1 . 28. Joan Didion, "The Women's Movement," in The White Album (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1979), p. 110. 29. Susan Sontag, "Feminism and Fascism: An Exchange," New York Review of Books, March 20, 1975, p. 31.

NOTES

287

30. Doris Lessing, "Women's Quests," lecture delivered February 4, 1991. Reprinted in Partisan Review 59, no. 2 (1992): 190, 192. 31. Teresa Ebert, "The Politics of the Outrageous," Women's Review of Books, October 1991, p. 12. 32. New York, March 4, 1991, p. 30. 33. PMLA (January 1989): 78. 34. Paula Goldsmid, panel discussion, "Toward a Feminist Transformation of the Acad­ emy" (Chicago: Great Lakes Colleges Association, November 2 - 4 , 1979), p. 54. 35. Paula Rothenberg, "Teaching 'Racism and Sexism in a Changing America,' " Radical Teacher, November 1984, p. 2.

Chapter 7: The Self-Esteem Study 1. 2. 3. 4.

New York Times, January 9, 1991, p. B6. Chicago Tribune, September 29, 1991, p. 1. Boston Globe, January 20, 1991, p. A21. Testimony of Rep. Patricia Schroeder on the Gender Equity in Education Act before the House Education and Labor Committee Subcommittee on Elementary, Second­ ary, and Vocational Education, April 21, 1993. 5. "Summary: Shortchanging Girls, Shortchanging America" (Washington, D.C.: Amer­ ican Association of University Women, 1991), p. 8. 6. Looking more closely at the findings, 1 saw that in many areas girls were more ambitious than the boys: more high school girls than boys aspire to be high-level professionals and business executives (42 percent of girls vs. 27 percent of boys). The number-one career goal of high school girls is lawyer: 71 percent would like to be lawyers, and 53 percent think they will achieve this goal. For boys, the most popular career ambition is sports star: 70 percent aspire to it, and 49 percent think they will actually succeed. See the AAUW/Greenberg-Lake Full Data Report (Wash­ ington, D.C.: Greenberg-Lake, 1990), pp. 1 2 - 1 3 .

7. Shortchanging Girls, Shortchanging America, video distributed by the American Asso­ ciation of University Women, Washington, D.C., 1991. 8. New York Times Magazine, January 7, 1990, p. 23. 9. "A Call to Action: Shortchanging Girls, Shortchanging America" (Washington, D.C.: American Association of University Women, 1991), p. 5. 10. Ibid., p. 5. 11. The original impetus for the self-esteem movement in the schools seems to come from studies done in the 1940s by Kenneth and Mamie Clark, showing that black children (ages three and seven) preferred white dolls. This was taken as a measure of their low self-esteem. The Clark studies have been challenged many times over. Adolescent psychologist Susan Harter gives seven references to recent books and articles disputing the Clark findings. Susan Harter, "Self-Identity and Development," in S. Shirley Feldman and Glen R. Elliott, eds., At the Threshold (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1990), p. 369. Gloria Steinem is apparently unaware of the more recent findings and still cites the doll studies as authoritative. See Steinem, Revolution from Within: A Book of Self-Esteem (Boston: Little, Brown, 1992), p. 221. 12. "Hey, I'm Terrific," Newsweek, February 17, 1992. 13. "Promoting Self-Esteem in Young Women: A Manual for Teachers" (Albany, N.Y.: State Education Department, 1989), p. 3.

288 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22.

23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38.

39. 40.

41.

NOTES

"A Call to Action," p. 24. Ibid., p. 26. Ibid., pp. 2 5 - 2 6 . Philip Robson, M.D., "Improving Self-Esteem," Harvard Medical School Mental Health letter, June 1990, p. 3. Ibid. Science News, May 15, 1993, p. 308. Harter, "Self-Identity and Development," p. 365. Bruce Bower, "Tracking Teen Self-Esteem," Science News, March 23, 1991, p. 184. His research is described in ibid., p. 186. I sent away for his studies, as well as the others mentioned in this article. They all appeared to be well designed and free of tendentiousness. "A Call to Action," p. 10. Roberta Simmons, quoted in Bower, "Tracking Teen Self-Esteem," p. 186. Ibid., p. 185. Ibid. Ibid., p. 186. Anne C. Petersen et al., "Depression in Adolescence," American Psychologist, February 1993, p. 155. Bower, "Tracking Teen Self-Esteem," p. 186. "A Call to Action," p. 10. The report's arithmetic is slightly off. The increase should be 9 - 1 7 points, not 7 - 1 7 . NEA Today, March 1991, p. 29. Chicago Tribune, September 29, 1991 (story written by Mary Sue Mohnke). Steinem, Revolution from Within, p. 121. The American Woman, 1992-93: A Status Report, ed. Paula Ries and Anne Stone (New York: Norton, 1992). Blurb on the back cover of ibid. Ibid., pp. 7 3 - 7 6 . Steinem's reversed figures made it into the paperback edition. The AALW Report: How Schools Shortchange Girls (commonly referred to as the "Wellesley Report") (Washington, D.C.: AAUW Educational Foundation, 1992), p. 12. "A Call to Action," p. 26. The figures are from the Greenberg-Lake Full Data Report, "Expectations and Aspi­ rations: Gender Roles and Self-Esteem" (Washington, D.C.: American Association of University Women, 1990). Several of the questions on the survey are variants of the "Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale"(RSE), which gives respondents the choices "strongly agree," "agree," "dis­ agree," or "strongly disagree" to statements like "On the whole, I am satisfied with myself and "I feel that I have a number of good qualities." The Rosenberg scale counts only the "disagree" and "strongly disagree" answers as indicative of low selfesteem responses. See Murray Rosenberg, Conceiving the Self (New York: Basic Books, 1979).

42. "Expectations and Aspirations," p. 21. 43. Ibid., p. 13. 44. See the Digest of Education Statistics (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Educa­ tion, 1993), p. 273.

NOTES

45. 46. 47. 48.

49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54.

55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65.

289

"Expectations and Aspirations," p. 22. "A Call to Action," p. 27. Ibid., p. 4. Harold W. Stevenson, "Children Deserve Better than Phony Self-Esteem," Education Digest, December 1992, pp. 1 2 - 1 3 . See also Harold W. Stevenson and James W. Stigler, The Learning Gap: Why Our Schools Are Failing and What We Can Learn from Japanese and Chinese Education (New York: Summit Books, 1992). New York Times, January 9, 1991. Lawrence J. Walker, "Sex Differences in the Development of Moral Reasoning: A Critical Review," Child Development 55 (1984): 681. Anne Colby and William Damon, "Listening to a Different Voice: A Review of Gilli­ gan's In a Different Voice," Merrill-Palmer Quarterly 29, no. 4 (October 1983): 475. Carol Tavris, The Mismeasure of Woman: Why Women Are Not the Better Sex, the Inferior Sex, or the Opposite Sex (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1992), p. 85. Ibid., p. 63. See also Katha Pollitt's "Marooned on Gilligan's Island: Are Women Morally Superior to Men?" The Nation, December 28, 1992. Faye J. Crosby, Juggling: The Unexpected Advantages of Balancing Career and Home for Women and Their Families (New York: Free Press, 1991), p. 124. This is the same Faye Crosby at that unhappy Mills College conference where the angry Rita attacked Raphael (see chapter 1). Martha T. Mednick, "On the Politics of Psychological Constructs: Stop the Bandwa­ gon, I Want to Get Off," American Psychologist, August 1989, p. 1120. Lyn Mikel Brown and Carol Gilligan, Meeting at the Crossroads: Women's Psychology and Girls' Development (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1992). Christopher Lasch, "Gilligan's Island," New Republic, December 7, 1992, p. 38. Carolyn G. Heilbrun, "How Girls Become Wimps," New York Times Book Review, October 4, 1992, p. 13. "Summary: Shortchanging Girls, Shortchanging America," p. 17 "Teacher's Guide: Take Our Daughters to Work" (New York: Ms. Foundation for Women, 1993), p. 3. Judy Mann, "My Daughter, His Griddle," Washington Post, April 23, 1993. Parade, May 17, 1992, p. 20. San Francisco Chronicle, April 16, 1993. "Teacher's Guide: Take Our Daughters to Work," p. 12. Ibid.

Chapter 8: The Wellesley Report: A Gender at Risk 1. "A Call to Action: Shortchanging Girls, Shortchanging America" (Washington, D.C.: American Association of University Women, 1991), p. 5. 2. The AAUW Report: How Schools Shortchange Girls (commonly referred to as the "Wellesley Report") (Washington, D.C.: AAUW Educational Foundation, 1992), p. vi. I am referring to the second AAUW study as the Wellesley Report to distinguish it from the first AAUW study on self-esteem. 3. San Francisco Chronicle, February 13, 1992, p. A22. 4. Los Angeles Times, February 22, 1992, p. B6. 5. Richard N. Ostling, "Is School Unfair to Girls?" Time, February 24, 1992, p. 62. 6. Boston Globe, February 2, 1992.

290

NOTES

7. New York Times, February 12, 1992. 8. The Gender Equity in Education Act (H.R. 1793) is made up of nine separate bills. Two of them seem reasonable and free of gender feminist ideology (a child abuse prevention program and a nutrition and family counseling program). But the other seven appear to be based on questionable gender feminist advocacy research. 9. Boston Globe, September 16, 1993, p. 5. 10. Executive summary, "Testimony before the House Subcommittee on Elementary, Secondary, and Vocational Education," April 21, 1993, p. 5. 11. Women's Research Network News (New York: National Council for Research on Women, 1993), p. 11. 12. The Condition of Education (Washington D.C.: National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education, 1991), p. 44. 13. The Condition of Education, 1992, pp. 4 2 - 4 9 . 14. Digest of Education Statistics (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, 1992), p. 136. 15. Wellesley Report, p. 45. 16. Boston Globe, January 24, 1994. The UCLA Center does a yearly study of the attitudes and goals of college freshmen. The 1993 results are based on a survey of approxi­ mately 250,000 students from 475 colleges and universities. 17. The Condition of Education, 1985, p. 66. 18. Ibid., pp. 50, 52. 19. Ibid., p. 206. 20. Digest of Education Statistics (Washington, D.C.: National Center for Education Statis­ tics, U.S. Department of Education, 1992), p. 137. 21. Wellesley Report, p. 79. 22. Monthly Vital Statistics Report, "Advance Report of Final Mortality Statistics, 1990" (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, January 1993), p. 27. 23. The quote is from an AAUW brochure called "Executive Summary: How Schools Shortchange Girls," p. 2; the information is taken from the Wellesley Report, p. 68. 24. Testimony of Rep. Patricia Schroeder on the Gender Equity in Education Act before the House Education and Labor Committee Subcommittee on Elementary, Second­ ary, and Vocational Education, April 21, 1993. 25. Wellesley Report, p. 68. 26. Myra Sadker and David Sadker, "Sexism in the Classroom: From Grade School to Graduate School," Phi Delta Kappan, March 1986, p. 514. 27. International Assessment of Educational Progress (IAEP), (Princeton, N.J.: Educa­ tional Testing Service, 1992), p. 145. The underperformance of American boys vis à vis foreign girls is consistent with the 1988 IAEP, which showed the Korean girls similarly outperforming American boys, IAEP (Princeton, N.J.: Educational Testing Service 1989), figure 1.3. 28. IAEP, 1992, p. 21. 29. Sadker and Sadker, "Sexism in the Classroom," pp. 5 1 2 - 1 3 . 30. David Sadker and Myra Sadker, "Is the O.K. Classroom O.K.?" Phi Delta Kappan, January 1985, p. 360. 31. Ibid., p. 361. 32. Wellesley Report, p. 68, and Review of Research in Education 17 (1991): 2 9 7 - 9 8 .

NOTES

291

33. David Sadker, Myra Sadker, and Dawn Thomas, "Sex Equity and Special Education," The Pointer 26, no. 1 (1981): 36. 34. Myra Sadker, David Sadker, and Susan Klein, "The Issue of Gender in Elementary and Secondary Education" in ed. Gerald Grant, Review of Research in Education 17, (1991): 2 9 7 - 9 8 . 35. Myra Sadker and David Sadker, Failing at Fairness: How America's Schools Cheat Girls (New York: Scribners, 1994), p. 10. 36. Myra Sadker and David Sadker, Year Three: Final Report, Promoting the Effectiveness in Classroom Instruction (Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Education, Department of Education, March 1984), contract no. 400-80-0033, p. 2. 37. Marlaine E. Lockheed, "A Study of Sex Equity in Classroom Interaction" (Washing­ ton, D.C.: National Institute of Education, 1984). 38. Lisa A. Serbin, K. Daniel O'Leary, Ronald N. Kent, and Illene J. Tonick, "A Compar­ ison of Teacher Response to the Preacademic and Problem Behavior of Boys and Girls," Child Development, 1973, p. 803. 39. M. Gail Jones, "Gender Bias in Classroom Interactions," Contemporary Education 60, no. 4 (Summer 1989). 40. K. Tobin and P. Garnett, "Gender-Related Differences in Science Activities," Science Education 71, no. 1 (1987): 9 1 - 1 0 3 . 41. Jones, "Gender Bias in Classroom Interactions," p. 22. 42. Wellesley Report, p. 70. 43. Testimony submitted to the House Subcommittee on Elementary, Secondary, and Vocational Education, April 21, 1993, by Anne L. Bryant, p. 2. 44. Ibid, p. 2. 45. From summary of Gender Equity in Education Act (H.R. 1793) distributed by the Congressional Caucus on Women's Issues (1993). 46. The program was aired on January 1, 1993. 47. The article appears in Educational Leadership 46, no. 6 (1989): 4 4 - 4 7 . 48. The transcript of the April 7, 1992, "Dateline" documentary (called "Failing at Fair­ ness") is available through Burrelle's Information Services, Livingston, New Jersey. The segment was repeated on April 27, 1993. 49. "Dateline," April 7, 1992, p. 12. 50. "Dateline," April 27, 1993, p. 13. 51. Wellesley Report, p. iv. 52. Ibid., p. 65. 53. Ibid. 54. The Mcintosh video was made available to me by the Brookline School Department. 55. Robert Costrell, "The Mother of All Curriculums," Brookline Citizen, March 15, 1991, p. 7. 56. From The Science of Rights (1796), reprinted in Jane English, Sex Equality (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 1977), p. 53. 57. John Leo, "Sexism in the Schoolhouse," U.S. News & World Report, March 9, 1992. 58. "College-Bound Seniors: 1992 Profile of SAT and Achievement Test Takers" (Prince­ ton, N.J.: Educational Testing Service, 1992), p. iii. 59. Ibid., p. iv. 60. Wellesley Report, p. 56. 61. Fortune, March 23, 1992, p. 132.

292

NOTES

62. R. McCormack and M. McLeod, "Gender Bias in the Prediction of College Course Performance," Journal of Education Measurement 25, no. 4 (1988): 330. 63. Fortune, May 18, 1992, p. 43. 64. Letters from readers, Commentary, October 1992, p. 2. 65. Wellesley Report, p. 86. 66. Ibid., p. 87. 67. Barry Cipra, "An Awesome Look at Japan's Math SAT," Science, January 1, 1993, p. 22. 68. Ibid. 69. Ibid. 70. Ibid. 71. Science, March 2, 1990, p. 1025. 72. Several other reports say much the same thing. See, for example, Everybody Counts: A Report to the Nation on the Future of Mathematics Education (Washington, D.C: National Academy Press, 1989). According to this report: Average students in other countries often learn as much mathematics as the best students learn in the United States. Data from the Second International Mathe­ matics Study show that the performance of the top 5 percent of U.S. students is matched by the top 50 percent of students in Japan. Our very best students—the top 1 percent—score lowest of the top 1 percent in all participating countries. 73. Harold W. Stevenson, Chuansheng Chen, and Shin-Ying Lee, "Mathematics Achieve­ ment of Taiwanese, Japanese, and American Children: Ten Years Later," Science, January 1, 1993, p. 54. 74. International Assessment of Mathematics and Science, 1992. 75. Some education watchers have tried to downplay the poor performance of American students on international tests. For example, one study, mentioned by Time magazine (October 25, 1993, p. 20), allegedly showed that the top 50 percent of American eighth-graders were performing just as well as their Japanese counterparts. What Time failed to mention is that the study showed parity only in the area of arithmetic. Our children were way behind in algebra, measurement, and geometry. Unfortu­ nately, arithmetic is only one branch of mathematics needed to compete in a global economy. The downplayers do us no service by making light of the learning gap. 76. Education Digest, April 1992, p. 59. 77. The results were published in a booklet, "Secrets in Public: Sexual Harassment in Our Schools" (1993), distributed by the Wellesley College Center for Research on Women and the NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund. 78. Nan Stein, "School Harassment—An Update," Education Week, November 4, 1992, p. 37. 79. Boston Globe, March 24, 1993, p. 1. 80. Norman Bradburn, director of the National Opinion Research Center at the Univer­ sity of Chicago, coined the acronym SLOPS. It actually stands for "self-selected listener opinion polls," but what he says about SLOPS applies equally well to maga­ zine polls. See "Numbers from Nowhere: The Hoax of the Call-In Polls," by Richard Morin, Washington Post, February 9, 1992. 81. Boston Globe, March 24, 1993, p. 18.

NOTES

293

82. "Hostile Hallways: The AAUW Survey on Sexual Harassment in America's Schools" (Washington, D.C.: American Association of University Women, 1993), pp. 7 - 1 0 . 83. Boston Globe, June 2, 1993, p. 1. 84. According to the 1992 Digest of Educational Statistics, p. 142, 10.6 percent of male and 7.1 percent of female eighth-graders cut classes "at least sometimes"; and 89.4 percent of boys and 92.9 percent of girls say they do it "never or almost never." 85. "Sex and School Debating Harassment," Boston Globe, June 6, 1993, p. 15. 86. ABC "Lifetime Magazine," aired January 2, 1994.

Chapter 9: Noble Lies 1. Gloria Steinem, Revolution from Within: A Book of Self-Esteem (Boston: Little, Brown, 1992), pp. 2 5 9 - 6 1 . 2. A brief account of the hoax is also to be found in the preface. 3. Ken Ringle, "Wife-Beating Claims Called Out of Bounds," Washington Post, January 31, 1993, p. A l . 4. Reported in Jean Cobb, "A Super Bowl-Battered Women Link?" American Journalism Review, May 1993, p. 35. 5. Boston Globe, January 29, 1993, p. 13. 6. Quoted in "Football's Day of Dread," Wall Street Journal, February 5, 1993, p. A10. 7. Ibid. 8. Ringle, "Wife-Beating Claims." 9. Ibid. 10. Bob Hohler, "Super Bowl Gaffe," Boston Globe, February 2, 1993, p. 17. 11. Ringle, "Wife-Beating Claims." 12. This quotation from Lenore Walker was in Hohler's original story for the Globe (February 2, 1993); but it was edited out for space purposes when the article ran. He gave me permission to use it. 13. Donna Jackson, How to Make the World a Better Place for Women in Five Minutes a Day (New York: Hyperion, 1992), p. 62. Ms. Jackson is editor-at-large for New Woman magazine. 14. "Female Victims of Violent Crime," by Caroline Wolf Harlow (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 1991), p. 1. 15. Murray Straus, Richard Gelles, and Suzanne Steinmetz, Behind Closed Doors: Violence in the American Family (New York: Anchor Books, 1980). 16. Congressional Quarterly Almanac, 1991, p. 294. 17. Senator Joseph Biden, chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee, Violence Against Women: A Week in the Life of America (U.S. Government Printing Office., 1992), p. 3. 18. Cheris Kramarae and Paula A. Treichler, eds., A Feminist Dictionary (London: Pandora Press, 1985), p. 66. 19. Fundraising brochure sent out by the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, Washington, D.C., 1993. The headline of the brochure is "Every 15 Seconds a Woman Is Battered in This Country." That would add up to a total of 2.1 million incidents. 20. Poster, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, advertising lecture appearance of Gail Dines, October 13, 1992: "Images of Violence Against Women." 21. Marilyn French also gives this figure, "In the United States, a man beats a woman

294

NOTES

every twelve seconds," The War Against Women (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1992), p. 187. 22. The Clothesline Project is a traveling exhibit on domestic violence. It was on display at Johns Hopkins University on October 22, 1993. They did sound a gong at tensecond intervals from 10:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. 23. BrotherPeace is a men's antiviolence group in St. Cloud, Minnesota. The figures are from their fact sheet, called "Statistics for Men." 24. Gelles and Straus found that two-thirds of teenagers physically attack a sister or brother at least once in the course of a year, and in more than one-third of these cases, the attack involves severe forms of violence such as kicking, punching, biting, choking, and attacking with knives and guns. "These incredible rates of intrafamily violence by teenagers make the high rates of violence by their parents seem modest by comparison," in Richard Gelles and Murray Straus, Physical Violence in American Families (New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Publishers, 1990), p. 107. 25. Ibid., p. 162. 26. Ibid., chap. 5. 27. The population is aging. Men and women marry at a later age and have fewer children. Such changes might explain a drop in the percentage of women who are abused. See Gelles and Straus, Intimate Violence: The Causes and Consequences oj Abuse in the American Family (New York: Touchstone, 1989), pp. I l l and 112. 28. Gelles and Straus, Physical Violence in American Families, p. 285. 29. Commonwealth Fund, survey of women's health (New York: Commonwealth Fund, July 14, 1993), p. 8. 30. Ibid. Clippings from newspapers around the country are included in the survey results. 31. This is consistent with Gelles and Straus's figure of less than 1 percent for pathological abuse. The Commonwealth sample had a margin of error of 2 percent either way. There could be other explanations: as Gelles and Straus say, the women who are most brutally and dangerously abused would probably be afraid to talk about it. But if there are several million out there, surely the Harris poll would have found at least one. 32. Incidentally, rape crisis feminist researchers like Diana Russell, author of Rape in Marriage, (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1990), have declared an epidemic of marital rape. But when the Harris poll asked, "In the past year, did your partner ever try to, or force you to, have sexual relations by using physical force, or not?" 100 percent of the more than 2,500 respondents said "not." Here again one may be sure that marital rape is out there, but this poll suggests it's rarer than Russell says. Using Russell as their source, the feminist compendium "WAC Stats: The Facts About Women" (New York: Women's Action Coalition, 1993) says that "more than one in every seven women who have ever been married have been raped in marriage" (p. 49). 33. Bias reappears in another Harris/Commonwealth finding that 40 percent of American women are severely depressed. As it happened, Harris and Associates had appointed Lois Hoeffler, a gender feminist advocate, as principal investigator in charge of the survey of women's health. For an account of her views and her participation in a poll that resulted in sensational and depressing conclusions, see chapter 11. 34. Andrew Klein, "Spousal/Partner Assault: A Protocol for the Sentencing and Supervi­ sion of Offenders" (Quincy, Mass.: Quincy Court, 1993), p. 5.

NOTES

295

35. Ibid., p. 7. 36. See, for example, Kerry Lobel, ed., Naming the Violence: Speaking Out about Lesbian Violence (Seattle, Wash.: Seal Press, 1986). 37. Claire Renzetti, Violent Betrayal: Partner Abuse in Lesbian Relationships (Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage Press, 1992). Claudia Card, "Lesbian Battering," in the American Philo­ sophical Association's Newsletter on Feminism and Philosophy, November 1988, p. 3. 38. Renzetti, Violent Betrayal, p. 115. 39. Gelles and Straus, in Physical Violence in American Families, p. 11. 40. Mirabella, November 1993, p. 78. In its June 1993 issue, Mirabella did its own SLOP survey on women's health and found that 31 percent of their respondents were beaten by their husbands or boyfriends. Eighteen percent were beaten by more than one person. The survey was cosponsored by the Center for Women's Policy Studies. 41. Journal of the American Medical Association, June 2 2 - 2 9 , 1984. 42. Ibid., p. 3260. 43. According to the authors, "The study did not find a statistically significant difference between the number of male and female domestic violence victims, although a greater proportion of the victims were female (62%)." Ibid., p. 3263. 44. Stark is an associate professor of public administration at Rutgers University in Newark, New Jersey. Flitcraft is an associate professor of medicine at the Mount Sinai Hospital/University of Connecticut Health Center's Outpatient Services in Hartford, Connecticut. They run the Domestic Violence Training Project for Health Profession­ als in New Haven. 45. Evan Stark and Anne Flitcraft, "Spouse Abuse" (October 1985), working paper edited by the Violence Epidemiology Branch, Centers for Disease Control, Atlanta. Cited in "Violence Against Women" fact sheet from the Center for Women's Policy Center, Washington, D.C., 1993. 46. Evan Stark, Anne Flitcraft, and William Frazier, "Medicine and Patriarchal Violence," International Journal of Health Services 9, no. 3 (1979): 485. 47. Ibid., pp. 4 8 7 - 8 8 . 48. Ibid., p. 482. 49. Carole Sheffield, "Sexual Terrorism," in Jo Freeman, ed., Women: A Feminist Perspec­ tive (Mountain View, Calif.: Mayfield Publishing, 1989), p. 7. 50. "Sonya Live," CNN, May 26, 1993. 51. Other references to the rule of thumb include: Until the 19th Century, there was a charming little rule of thumb that applied to family life. A man was allowed to beat his wife as long as the stick he used was no wider than a thumb. (Ellen Goodman, Washington Post, April 19, 1983) English Common Law, from which our own laws are derived, allowed a man to beat his "wayward" wife as long as the switch he used was not thicker than the size of his thumb. A female caseworker in Cleveland says she never uses the term "rule of thumb" because of what it traditionally implies. (UPS, November 9,1986) Today's cultures have strong historical, religious, and legal legacies that reinforce the legitimacy of wife-beating. Under English common law, for example, a hus­ band had the legal right to discipline his wife—subject to a "rule of thumb" that barred him from using a stick broader than his thumb. Judicial decisions in

296

NOTES

England and the United States upheld this right until well into the 19th century. (Washington Post, April 9, 1989) In English common law, a man was considered to have a right to "physically chastise an errant wife." What passed for restraint was the notorious "rule of thumb" which stated that the stick he beat her with could not exceed the width of the thumb. (Los Angeles Times, September 4, 1989, p. 1) Patricia Ireland said she learned the rule of thumb which, under English common law, allowed a man to beat his wife as long as he used a stick no thicker than his thumb. (Orlando Sentinel, December, 1991) In state courts across the country, wife beating was legal until 1890. There was a "rule of thumb," by which courts had stated a man might beat his wife with a switch no thicker than his thumb. (Chicago Tribune, March 18, 1990) 52. Women's Studies Network (Internet: [email protected]), May 11, 1993. Many women's studies scholars know very well that the "rule of thumb" story is a myth. They talk about it freely on their network; but you will never see them correcting the textbooks or the news stories. 53. Sir William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England (New York: W. E. Dean, 1836), vol. 1, p. 36. 54. Elizabeth Pleck, "Wife Beating in Nineteenth-Century America," Victimology: An In­ ternational Journal 4 (1979): 71. 55. Ibid., pp. 6 0 - 6 1 . 56. Ibid. 57. Elizabeth Pleck, Domestic Tyranny (New York: Oxford University Press, 1987), p. 110. Pleck makes the interesting point that modern attitudes to wife battering are not that different from those in the nineteenth century—wife beaters are despised, and the public feels vindictive toward them. What has changed is that in the nine­ teenth century the punishment was more informal. The batterers were beaten up, whipped, and publicly shamed. Today, it is a matter for the courts: the punishment is often a restraining order, counseling, a suspended sentence, or a severe lecture from a disapproving judge or police officer. One advantage of the old system is that the batterer's punishment did not depend on the victim turning him in. As Pleck says, "Third parties were watching a husband's behavior and reporting his misdeed to a policing group." The sanctions such as whipping, shunning, and public shaming may have been the more powerful deterrents. See Pleck, "Wife Beating in NineteenthCentury America," p. 71. 58. Bradley v. State, Walker 156, Miss. 1824; State v. Oliver, 70 N.C. 61, 1874. 59. See Pleck, "Wife Beating in Nineteenth-Century America," p. 63. 60. In 1974 an article by sociologist Robert Calvert made reference to the North Carolina and Mississippi judges. It was published in an important anthology on domestic battery edited by Murray Straus and Suzanne Steinmetz, Violence in the Family (To­ ronto: Dodd, Mead, 1975), p. 88. Martin may have learned about the two judges there. 61. Del Martin, Battered Wives (Volcano, Calif.: Volcano Press, 1976), p. 31. 62. Terry Davidson, "Wife Beating: A Recurring Phenomenon Throughout History,"

NOTES

63. 64. 65. 66.

297

in Maria Roy, ed., Battered Women (New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1977), p. 18. Ibid., p. 19. "Under the Rule of Thumb: Battered Women and the Administration of Justice: A Report of the United States Commission on Civil Rights," January 1982, p. 2. Ibid. Time, January 18, 1993, p. 41.

Chapter 10: Rape Research 1. Federal Bureau of Investigation, Crime in the United States: Uniform Crime Reports (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 1990). 2. Bureau of the Census, Statistical Abstract of the United States 1990, (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1992), p. 184. See also Caroline Wolf Harlow, Bureau of Justice Statistics, "Female Victims of Violent Crime" (Washington, D.C., U.S. Department of Justice, 1991), p. 7. 3. Louis Harris and Associates, "Commonwealth Fund Survey of Women's Health" (New York: Commonwealth Fund, 1993), p. 9. What the report says is that "within the last five years, 2 percent of women (1.9 million) were raped." 4. "Rape in America: A Report to the Nation" (Charleston, S.C.: Crime Victims Research and Treatment Center, 1992). 5. Catharine MacKinnon, "Sexuality, Pornography, and Method," Ethics 99 (January 1989): 331. 6. Mary Koss and Cheryl Oros, "Sexual Experiences Survey: A Research Instrument Investigating Sexual Aggression and Victimization," Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 50, no. 3 (1982): 455. 7. Nara Schoenberg and Sam Roe, "The Making of an Epidemic," Blade, October 10, 1993, special report, p. 4. 8. The total sample was 6,159, or whom 3,187 were females. See Mary Koss, "Hidden Rape: Sexual Aggression and Victimization in a National Sample of Students in Higher Education," in Ann Wolbert Burgess, ed., Rape and Sexual Assault, vol. 2 (New York: Garland Publishing, 1988), p. 8. 9. Ibid., p. 10. 10. Ibid., p. 16. 11. Mary Koss, Thomas Dinero, and Cynthia Seibel, "Stranger and Acquaintance Rape," Psychology of Women Quarterly 12 (1988): 12. See also Neil Gilbert, "Examining the Facts: Advocacy Research Overstates the Incidence of Date and Acquaintance Rape," in Current Controversies in Family Violence, ed. Richard Gelles and Donileen Loseke (Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage Publications, 1993), pp. 1 2 0 - 3 2 . 12. The passage is from Robin Warshaw, in her book I Never Called It Rape (New York: HarperPerennial, 1988), p. 2, published by the Ms. Foundation and with an after­ word by Mary Koss. The book summarizes the findings of the rape study. 13. Newsweek, October 25, 1993. 14. Naomi Wolf, The Beauty Myth: How Images of Beauty Are Used Against Women (New York: Doubleday, 1992), p. 166. 15. At the University of Minnesota, for example, new students receive a booklet called "Sexual Exploitation on Campus." The booklet informs them that according to "one

298

NOTES

study [left unnamed] 20 to 25 percent of all college women have experienced rape or attempted rape." 16. The Violence Against Women Act of 1993 was introduced to the Senate by Joseph Biden on January 21, 1993. It is sometimes referred to as the "Biden Bill." It is now making its way through the various congressional committees. Congressman Ramstad told the Minneapolis Star Tribune (June 19, 1991), "Studies show that as many as one in four women will be the victim of rape or attempted rape during her college career." Ramstad adds, "This may only be the tip of the iceberg, for 90 percent of all rapes are believed to go unreported." 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25.

26. 27. 28.

29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45.

Gilbert, "Examining the Facts," pp. 1 2 0 - 3 2 . Cited in Koss, "Hidden Rape," p. 9. Blade, special report, p. 5. Ibid. Koss herself calculated the new "one in nine" figure for the Blade, p. 5. Cathy Young, Washington Post (National Weekly Edition), July 29, 1992, p. 25. Katha Pollitt, "Not Just Bad Sex," New Yorker, October 4, 1993, p. 222. Koss, "Hidden Rape," p. 16. Blade, p. 5. The Blade reporters explain that the number varies between one and twenty-two and one in thirty-three depending on the amount of overlap between groups. "Rape in America," p. 2. Ibid., p. 15. The secretary of health and human services, Donna Shalala, praised the poll for avoiding a "white male" approach that has "for too long" been the norm in research about women. My own view is that the interpretation of the poll is flawed. See the discussions in chapters 9 and 11. Louis Harris and Associates, "The Commonwealth Fund Survey of Women's Health," p. 20. Blade, p. 3. Ibid., p. 6. Ibid. Dean Kilpatrick, et al., "Mental Health Correlates of Criminal Victimization: A Ran­ dom Community Survey," Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 53, 6 (1985). Time, May 4, 1992, p. 15. Blade, special report, p. 3. Ibid., p. 3. Ibid., p. 5. Ibid., p. 3. Camille Paglia, "The Return of Carry Nation," Playboy, October 1992, p. 36. Camille Paglia, "Madonna I: Anomility and Artifice," New York Times, December 14, 1990. Reported in Peter Hellman, "Crying Rape: The Politics of Date Rape on Campus," New York, March 8, 1993, pp. 3 2 - 3 7 . Washington Times, May 7, 1993. Hellman, "Crying Rape," pp. 3 2 - 3 7 . Ibid., p. 34. Ibid., p. 37.

299

NOTES

46. Katie Roiphe, The Morning After: Sex, Fear, and Feminism (Boston: Little, Brown, 1993), p. 45. 47. Blade, p. 13. 48. Andrea Parrot, Acquaintance Rape and Sexual Assault Prevention Training Manual (Ith­ aca, N.Y.: College of Human Ecology, Cornell University, 1990), p. 1. 49. Blade, p. 13. 50. Ibid., p. 14. 51. Alice Rossi, ed., The Feminist Papers: From Adams to de Beauvoir (New York: Columbia University Press, 1973), p. 414. 52. Katie Roiphe, "Date Rape's Other Victim," New York Times Magazine, June 13, 1993, p. 26. 53. Ibid., p. 40. 54. Women's Studies Network (Internet: L I S T S E R V @ U M D D . U M D . E D U ) , June 14, 1993. 55. Ibid.,June 13, 1993. 56. See Sarah Crichton, "Sexual Correctness: Has It Gone Too Far?" Newsweek, October 25, 1993, p. 55. 57. See Neil Gilbert, "The Phantom Epidemic of Sexual Assault," The Public Interest, Spring 1991, pp. 5 4 - 6 5 ; Gilbert, "The Campus Rape Scare," Wall Street Journal, June 27, 1991, p. 10; and Gilbert, "Examining the Facts," pp. 1 2 0 - 3 2 . 58. "Stop It Bitch," distributed by the National Clearinghouse on Marital and Date Rape, Berkeley, California. (For thirty dollars they will send you "thirty-four years of re­ search to help refute him [Gilbert].") See also the Blade, p. 5. 59. Sheila Kuehl, "Skeptic Needs Taste of Reality Along with Lessons About Law," Los Angeles Daily Journal, September 5, 1991. Ms. Kuehl, it will be remembered, was a key figure in disseminating the tidings that men's brutality to women goes up 40 percent on Super Bowl Sunday. Some readers may remember Ms. Kuehl as the adolescent girl who played the amiable Zelda on the 1960s "Dobie Gillis Show." 60. International Crime Rates (Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1988), p. 1. The figures for 1983: England and Wales, 2.7 per 100,000; United States, 33.7 per 100,000 (p. 8). Consider these figures comparing Japan to other countries (rates of rape per 100,000 inhabitants): FORCIBLE RAPE

U.S. U.K. (England and Wales only) (West) Germany France Japan

61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66.

38.1 12.1 8.0 7.8 1.3

Source: Japan 1992: An International Comparison (Tokyo: Japan Institute for Social and Economic Affairs, 1992), p. 93. "Men, Sex, and Rape," ABC News Forum with Peter Jennings, May 5, 1992, Tran­ script no. ABC-34, p. 21. Ibid., p. 11. Ibid. Senator Biden, cited by Carolyn Skorneck, Associated Press, May 27, 1993. "The Violence Against Women Act of 1993," title 3, p. 87. Ruth Shalit, "On the Hill: Caught in the Act," New Republic, July 12, 1993, p. 15.

300

NOTES

67. See ibid., p. 14. 68. Stephen Donaldson, "The Rape Crisis Behind Bars," New York Times, December 29, 1993, p. A l l . See also Donaldson, "Letter to the Editor" New York Times, August 24, 1993. See, too, Wayne Wooden and Jay Parker, Men Behind Bars: Sexual Exploitation in Prison (New York: Plenum Press, 1982); Anthony Sacco, ed., Male Rape: A Casebook of Sexual Aggressions (New York: AMS Press, 1982); and Daniel Lockwood, Prison Sexual Violence (New York: Elsevier, 1980).

Chapter 11: The Backlash Myth 1. Susan Faludi, Backlash: The Undeclared War Against American Women (New York: Crown, 1991); Naomi Wolf, The Beauty Myth: How Images of Beauty Are Used Against Women (New York: Doubleday, 1992). 2. Wolf, The Beauty Myth, p. 19. 3. Ibid., p. 99. 4. Faludi, Backlash, p. xxii. 5. Wolf, The Beauty Myth, p. 19. 6. Ibid., p. 4. 7. Ibid., p. 124. 8. According to Faludi, "Just when women's quest for equal rights seemed closest to achieving its objectives, the backlash struck it down. . . . The Republican party ele­ vated Ronald Reagan and both political parties began to shunt women's rights off their platforms." Backlash, p. xix. 9. Rep. Patricia Schroeder reviewed Backlash for Knight-Rider Newspapers. I am quoting from the version that appeared in the Austin American Statesmen, Sunday, November 24, 1991, p. E6. 10. Paul Berman mentioned "Parisian determinism" during a discussion at an academic conference. He had good news for those worried about what may be coming next out of Paris: today fashionable French intellectuals are interested in liberalism and human rights, with special attention to writings of James Madison and Thomas Jefferson. 11. Richard Rorty, "Foucault and Epistemology," in David Couzens Hoy, éd., Foucault: A Critical Reader (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1986), p. 47. 12. Michael Walzer, "The Politics of Michel Foucault," in ibid., p. 51. 13. Michel Foucault, Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings, 1972-1977, ed. Colin Gordon (New York: Random House, 1980), p. 134. 14. Sandra Lee Bartky, Femininity and Domination: Studies in the Phenomenolgy of Oppres­ sion (New York: Routledge, 1990), p. 75. 15. Ibid., p. 80. 16. Catharine MacKinnon, "Desire and Power: A Feminist Perspective," in Cary Nelson and Lawrence Grossberg, eds., Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture (Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1988), p. 110. 17. Catharine MacKinnon, Toward a Feminist Theory of the State (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1989), pp. 116-17. 18. Faludi, Backlash, p. xii. 19. Wolf, The Beauty Myth, p. 17 20. Faludi, Backlash, p. 455.

NOTES

301

21. Wolf, The Beauty Myth, p. 10. 22. Thomas F. Cash, Diane Walker Cash, and Jonathan W. Butters, " 'Mirror, Mirror on the Wall. . . ?' Contrast Effects and Self-Evaluations of Physical Attractiveness," Per­ sonality and Social Psychology Bulletin 9, no. 3 (September 1983): 3 5 4 - 5 5 . 23. Ms. Wolf did not speak to the principal author at Old Dominion, Thomas Cash, and there is some doubt that she ever saw the article she cites. She says, for example, that Cash arrived at his conclusions by studying some of his patients, who, he said, were "extremely attractive." But Cash did not study his patients. At the beginning of the article, he and his coauthors clearly state that they used "a sample of fifty-one female college students . . . recruited from introductory psychology classes." Dr. Cash told me, "1 remember thinking she must be confusing my study with another. I never mentioned anything about my patients, and did not study them." 24. Wolf, The Beauty Myth, p. 165. There is no "American legal definition of rape." Each state has its own criteria. 25. Ellen Goodman, " 'The Man Shortage' and Other Big Lies," New York Times Book Review, October 27, 1991, p. 1. 26. Barbara Lovenheim, letter to the New York Times Book Review, February 9, 1992. 27. Faludi, Backlash, p. 30. 28. "Facts About Down Syndrome for Women over 35" (Washington D.C.: National Institute of Health, 1979), p. 9. 29. Lovenheim, ibid., p. 30. 30. Bureau of Census, Current Population Reports, Series P 23, no. 162, June 1989. Cited in Barbara Lovenheim, Beating the Marriage Odds (New York: William Morrow, 1990), p. 34. 31. Gretchen Morgenson, "A Whiner's Bible," Forbes, March 16, 1992, p. 153. 32. Ibid., p. 152. 33. Nancy Gibbs, "The War Against Feminism," Time, March 9, 1992, p. 52. 34. Ibid. 35. Cathy Young, "Phony War," Reason, November 1991, p. 57. 36. Working Woman, April 1992, p. 104. 37. Ibid. 38. Sylvia Nasar, "Women's Progress Stalled? Just Not So," New York Times, October 18, 1992, sec. 3, p. 1. 39. Diane Ravitch, Youth Policy, June-July 1992, p. 12. 40. Nasar, "Women's Progress Stalled?" The article summarizes the recent findings of three prominent women economists, Understanding the Gender Gap, by Claudia Goldin (Harvard University); The Economics of Men, Women, and Work, by Francine Blau and Marianne Ferber (University of Illinois); and June O'Neill (Baruch College), "Women and Wages," The American Enterprise, November/December 1990, pp. 2 5 33. 41. Faludi, Backlash, p. 364. 42. Ibid. 43. These ratios are for median earnings—i.e., the earnings of the male or female in the middle of the pack (one-half earn more, one-half earn less). Source: Bureau of Census, Current Population Reports, Consumer Income Series P60-184, Money In­ come of Households, Families, and Persons in the United States: 1992, September 1993. 44. If gender "backlash" is to be inferred from the earnings ratio, it could only have

302

NOTES

happened back in the 1950s and early 1960s: that is the last period in which the earnings ratio fell. 45. See O'Neill, "Women and Wages," p. 29. Faludi inexplicably objects to such a straightforward correction for difference in work weeks, referring to this as "spurious data fudging" resulting in an "artificially inflated earnings" ratio. 46. June O'Neill and Solomon Polachek, "Why the Gender Gap in Wages Narrowed in the 1980s," Journal of Labor Economics 11, no. 1 (January 1993), part 1: 2 0 5 - 2 8 . Some economists argue that the anticipation of spending less time in market activities than men leads many women to focus their education and training in less remuner­ ative areas, both in secondary and postsecondary education, academic and vocational (see, for example, Claudia Goldin and Solomon Polachek, "Residual Differences by Sex: Perspectives on the Gender Gap in Earnings," American Economic Review 77, no.2 [May 1987]: 1 4 3 - 5 1 ) . 47. This is a theme stressed by Stamford economist Victor Fuchs, Women's Quest for Equality (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1988). A recent study of 1 9 7 2 - 7 5 graduates of the University of Michigan Law School, fifteen years after graduation, found that one-quarter of the women had at some point worked parttime to care for their children, as compared to 0.5 percent of the men. It also found that this had a very large effect on subsequent earnings, even after returning to work full-time. One of the major reasons appeared to be that such women were far less likely to become partners in large law firms: "Fewer than one-fifth [of mothers] with extensive part-time work had made partner in their firms 15 years after graduation, while more than four-fifths of the mothers with little or no part-time work had made partner" (Robert G. Wood, Mary E. Corcoran, and Paul N. Courant, "Pay Differences among the Highly Paid: The Male-Female Earnings Gap in Lawyers' Salaries," Journal of Labor Economics 11, no. 3 (1993): 4 1 7 - 4 1 . 48. O'Neill, "Women and Wages," p. 32. The 86 percent figure standardizes for age and region only; the 91 percent figure also standardizes for additional factors. This article summarizes for noneconomists such scientific work as O'Neill and Polachek, "Why the Gender Gap in Wages Narrowed in the 1980s," and Claudia Goldin, Understand­ ing the Gender Gap. 49. O'Neill, "Women and Wages." 50. See Shirley M. Tilghman, "Science vs. Women—A Radical Solution," New York Times, January 26, 1993, p. A23. 51. There is a a good discussion of the problem of women, family, and the workplace in Women and Work/Family Dilemma by Deborah Swiss and Judith Walker (New York: Wiley, 1993). 52. "Does the Market for Women's Labor Need Fixing?" Journal of Economic Perspectives, 3, no. 1 (Winter 1989): 4 3 - 6 0 . 53. Chronicle of Higher Education, December 1, 1993, p. A9. 54. American Economic Association's Committee on the Status of Women in the Eco­ nomic Profession, Newsletter, October 1991. 55. Faludi, Backlash, p. 322. 56. Quoted in ibid., p. 313. 57. Sylvia Ann Hewlett, A Lesser Life: The Myth of Women's Liberation in America (New York: William Morrow, 1986), p. 211. 58. Faludi, Backlash, pp. 3 1 2 - 1 8 . 59. Ibid., pp. 3 2 0 - 2 1 .

NOTES

60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67.

68.

69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74.

75. 76.

303

Ibid., p. 321. Wolf, The Beauty Myth, preface to paperback ed., p. 5. Naomi Wolf, Fire with Fire (New York: Random House, 1993). Glamour, November 1993, p. 224. Ibid., p. 277. S. Walters, Women's Studies Network (Internet: L I S T S E R V @ U M D D . U M D . E D U . ) , Febru­ ary 2, 1994. Kay Mussel, Fantasy and Reconciliation: Contemporary Formulas of Women's Romance Fiction (Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1984), p. 164. Kathleen Gilles Seidel, "Judge Me by the Joy I Bring," in Dangerous Men and Adven­ turous Women: Romance Writers on the Appeal of Romance, ed. Jayne Ann Krentz (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1992), p. 174. Louis Harris and Associates, "Commonwealth Fund Survey of Women's Health" (New York: Commonwealth Fund, 1993). I discussed the fund's questionable find­ ings on abuse in chap. 9. Ibid., p. 3. Ibid., p. 37. Michael Posner, "Survey Shows 4 of 10 Women Depressed," Reuters, July 14, 1993. Dallas Morning Star, July 15, 1993. Ibid. All the news clippings cited were included in the final report on the survey results in the Commonwealth Fund survey of women's health. See appendix: "Selected Press Clips." Gallup Poll Monthly, March 1992. San Francisco Chronicle, July 12, 1993, p. B3. The poll "The New Generation Gap: Boomers vs. Posties in the '90s" was carried out by pollster Mark Baldassare. He called six hundred adult residents, half men and half women, whose numbers were obtained from a computer-generated random sample. The University of Montreal psychologist Ethel Roskies sent out a questionnaire to 1,123 "high-level professional women" in law, medicine, engineering, and account­ ing. She reports that "in all personal psychological measures, the married professional with children scored highest. Next was the married professional without children, and last, and least content, was the single woman with no children." She found that "single childless women are significantly more depressed, report lower self-esteem, and lower life satisfaction than married women with children." Associated Press, Houston Post, November 22, 1992, p. A7.

77. Questions adapted from the Practice Guideline for Major Depressive Disorders in Adults (Washington, D.C.: American Psychiatric Association, 1993), p. 1. The Merck Manual of Diagnosis and Therapy (Rahway, N.J.: Merck, Sharp, and Dohme Research Labora­ tories, 1982), Vol. 1, p. 957, suggests several other criteria for severe depression: have you experienced a loss of capacity to experience emotion, or a feeling that the world has become colorless, lifeless, and dead? 78. Lee Robins and Darrel Regier, eds., Psychiatric Disorders in America: The Epidemiologic Catchment Area Study (New York: Free Press, 1991), p. 64. The Robins and Regier study, funded by NIMH, is one of the most respected in the field of psychiatry. It is the source cited by the American Psychiatric Association in its Practice Guideline for Major Depressive Disorders in Adults (vol. 150, no. 4 [1993]). 79. See Karen Bourdon et al., "Estimating the Prevalence of Mental Disorders in U.S.

304

80.

81. 82. 83. 84.

85.

NOTES

Adults from the Epidemiologic Catchment Area Survey," Public Health Reports 107, no. 6 (November-December 1992): 665. According to Robins and Regier, Psychiatric Disorders in America, men are at least four or five times more likely than women to become alcoholics (p. 85). Faludi herself is generally distrustful of studies that claim to show that modern liberated single women are depressed. Such studies are part of the backlash. See her discussion of how the media discourage single women by suggesting that their life­ styles lead to depression. Faludi, Backlash, p. 36. Ibid., p. 37. Robins and Regier, Psychiatric Disorders in America, p. 73. Ibid., p. 72. Wendy Wood, Nancy Rhodes, and Melanie Whelan, "Sex Differences in Positive Well-Being: A Consideration of Emotional Style and Marital Status," in Psychological Bulletin 106, no. 2 (1989): 249. Wendy Wood, in this paper and others, reports on a series of studies indicating that women and men have different styles of reporting on their emotions: "Women have . . . been found to report more extreme levels of fear, sadness, and joy than men" (p. 251). Mirabella, November 1993, p. 38. Hyperbole on women's victimization is very much in vogue. Mirabella is not alone among fashion magazines in routinely publishing articles promoting incendiary feminist advocacy statistics. In the same issue, Mirabella called Richard Gelles and Murray Straus "pop psychologists," attacking them for their "dispassionate" (hence unfeeling) research on domestic violence and for their findings on battery, which feminists call far too low. Unfortunately, Mirabella and its ilk foster misandrism by introducing many a teenager to the resenter mode of male/female relationships.

86. Ms. Futter is leaving Barnard to become president of the American Museum of Natural History. 87. Secretary Reich's words are found on the first page of the paperback edition of Faludi's Backlash.

Chapter 12: The Gender Wardens 1. Nat Hentoff, Free Speech for Me—But Not for Thee (New York: HarperCollins, 1992), p. 1. 2. Jay Overocker, "Ozzie and Harriet in Hell," Heterodoxy 1, no. 6 (November 1992): 9. 3. Ibid. 4. "Sex, Society, and the Female Dilemma" (a dialogue between Friedan and de Beau­ voir), Saturday Review, June 14^ 1975, p. 18. As an equity feminist I find much to admire in de Beauvoir's works, but her bland tolerance for authoritarianism is not part of it. She was perhaps unduly influenced by Jean-Paul Sartre, joining him in his Maoist phase in the seventies. This may help to explain, although it would not excuse, her readiness to use state power to force people to live "correct" lives. 5. Sandra Lee Bartky, Femininity and Domination: Studies in the Phenomenology of Oppres­ sion (New York: Routledge, 1990), p. 5. 6. Ibid., p. 51. 7. Ibid., pp. 56, 61. Ms. Bartky is also aware that her ideas about the radical reconstruc­ tion of self and society are not now popular. It does not worry her: "For it reveals the

NOTES

8. 9. 10.

11. 12. 13. 14.

15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32.

33.

305

extent to which the established order of domination has taken root within our very identities." Femininity and Domination, p. 5. Alison Jaggar, Feminist Politics and Human Nature (Totowa, N.J.: Rowman and Littlefield, 1983), p. 44. Ibid., p. 150. Marilyn Friedman, "Does Sommers Like Women? More on Liberalism, Gender Hier­ archy, and Scarlett O'Hara, "Journal of Social Philosophy 21, no. 2 (Fall-Winter 1990): 83. Gloria Steinem, Revolution from Within: A Book of Self-Esteem (Boston: Little, Brown, 1992), p. 260. Jaggar, Feminist Politics and Human Nature, p. 219. Steinem, Revolution from Within, p. 309. The theme of "safety" is central for gender feminism. Indeed, a favorite phrase for any place where feminists gather is "safe space." In this misogynist world, the "femi­ nist classroom," for example, is advertised as a safe space where women can speak freely without fear of being humiliated by derisive or brutal males. On the other hand, as I tried to show in chapter 6, the feminist classroom can be very unsafe for those who are not true believers in gender feminism. Later expanded and published in book form: Lis Harris, Holy Days: The World of a Hasidic Family (New York: Macmillan, 1985), p. 128. Ibid., p. 129. Bartky, Femininity and Domination, p. 58. Christina Sommers, "Feminist Philosophers Are Oddly Unsympathetic to the Women They Claim to Represent," Chronicle of Higher Education, October 11, 1989, p. B3. Marilyn Friedman, " 'They Lived Happily Ever After': Sommers on Women and Marriage," Journal of Social Philosophy, 21, nos. 2 and 3 (Fall-Winter 1990): 58. Helen Taylor, Scarlett's Women: "Gone with the Wind" and Its Female Fans (New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press, 1989). Ibid., p. 130. Ibid., p. 133. Friedman, "Does Sommers Like Women?" p. 87. Chronicle of Higher Education, January 15, 1992, p. A7. Ibid. "Men, Sex, and Rape," ABC News Forum, May 5, 1992. Transcript no. ABC-34, p. 9. Boston Globe, July 30, 1991, p. 54. Ann Ferguson, Sexual Democracy: Women, Oppression, and Revolution (Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press, 1991), p. 207. Lindsy van Gelder, "Lipstick Liberation," Los Angeles Times Magazine, March 15, 1992, p. 30. Friedman, "Does Sommers Like Women?" p. 87. Ann Garry, "Pornography and Respect for Women," in John Arthur, ed., Morality and Moral Controversies (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 1993), p. 264. Synopsis on back cover of Seduction by Jayne Ann Krentz. Cited in Jayne Ann Krentz, ed., Dangerous Men and Adventurous Women: Romance Writers on the Appeal of Romance (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1992), p. 15. Facts cited in Cathie Linz, "Setting the Stage: Facts and Figures," in Krentz, Dangerous Men and Adventurous Women, p. 11.

306

NOTES

34. Kathleen Gilles Seidel, "Judge Me by the Joy I Bring," in ibid., p. 170. 35. Ibid., p. 171. 36. Jayne Ann Krentz, "Trying to Tame the Romance," in Krentz, Dangerous Men and Adventurous Women, p. 107. Ms. Krentz also writes under the names of Amanda Quick, Jane Castle, and Stephanie James. She has written for Harlequin, Silhouette, and Dell. Her books are frequently on the New York Times best-seller list. 37. Krentz, "Trying to Tame the Romance," p. 109. 38. Ibid., pp. 1 1 3 - 1 4 . 39. New York Times, Sunday, July 25, 1993, p. 17. 40. Ibid., p. 17. 41. Ibid. 42. Pam Houston, "Big Sister Is Watching," Elle, January 1994, pp. 7 4 - 7 5 . 43. Ibid., p. 75. 44. See John Leo, "Cultural War at the Whitney," U.S. News & World Report, March 22, 1993; and Carol Strickland, "Politics Dominates Whitney Biennial," Christian Science Monitor, March 26, 1993, p. 10. 45. New York Times, July 21, 1991. 46. Ibid. 47. Pottsville Republican, November 16, 1991. 48. Nat Hentoff, "A 'Pinup' of His Wife," Washington Post, June 5, 1993, p. A21. 49. This statue offended several "on the verge" campus groups. The artist had been inclusive, but that got her into hot water with some students. The black man had a basketball, thus reinforcing the stereotype that all black men are jocks; one Asianlooking figure was carrying a violin, thus reinforcing the "model minority" stereotype. 50. Liza Mundy, "The New Critics," Lingua Franca 3, no. 6 (September/October 1993): 27. 51. Ibid., p. 30.

Index

ABC, 186, 2 2 3 - 2 4 Abrams, Mike, 111 academia, see classroom, feminist; colleges and universities; curriculum transformation; education; women's studies courses academic freedom, 121, 122, 128 Adelson, Joseph, 1 4 3 - 4 4 , 145 Adzhikhina, Natalya, 39 African-American students, self-esteem of, 149-50 Age of Jackson, The (Schlesinger), 8 4 85 Albrecht, Professor, 1 0 2 - 3 Alexander, Lamar, 171, 172 Allure, 265 Althusser, Louis, 1 1 3 - 1 4 American Anorexia and Bulimia Association, 12 American Association of University Professors, 116, 242

American Association of University Women (AAUW), 16, 52, 125, 136, 187, 231, 253 as activist arm of gender feminism, 141 1992 meeting of, 3 5 - 3 8 poll on sexual harassment commissioned by, 1 8 4 - 8 6 report on gender bias in schools commissioned by, 1 5 7 - 8 1 ; see also Wellesley Report self-esteem study commissioned by, 1 3 7 - 5 2 , 154, 157, 253; see also "Shortchanging Girls, Shortchanging America" American Council on Education, 125 American Economic Association, 242 American People, The (Handlin), 85 American Philosophical Association, 75 American Psychiatric Association, 250 American University, 129 American Voices, 6 0 - 6 1

308

INDEX

American Woman, The, 147 Amis, Kingsley, 118 androgyny, 265 anger, 1 9 - 2 2 , 2 4 - 3 3 , 42 as motif at feminist conferences, 1 9 - 2 1 , 29-33 personal horror stories and, 2 5 - 2 9 Annals of Emergency Medicine, 193, 2 0 1 - 2 anorexia nervosa, 1 1 - 1 2 , 15, 188, 233 Anrig, Gregory, 180 Anthony, Susan B., 22, 24, 25, 34, 35, 221 Arizona, University of, 8 1 - 8 2 , 129, 272 Arpad, Susan, 89 art, 54, 56, 6 2 - 6 5 , 103 deemed offensive, 2 7 0 - 7 3 ideologically correct, 2 6 9 - 7 0 standards of greatness in, 6 3 - 6 5 Asian children, self-esteem of, 150 Askey, Richard, 179 Associated Press, 190 Association of American Colleges (AAC), 52, 119, 1 2 4 - 2 5 , 127 Astin, Alexander, 161 astronomy, 72 AT&T, 39 Atlanta Constitution, 204 Atlantic, 2 6 3 - 6 4 Atlas, Raphael, 36, 3 7 - 3 8 Augustine, Saint, 227 Baber, Asa, 2 5 5 - 5 6 bachelor's degrees, 160 backlash, 18, 20, 24, 26, 45, 81, 1 1 6 - 1 7 , 131, 2 2 7 - 5 4 conspiracy theories and, 2 2 7 - 2 8 , 232 feminists accused of complicity in, 243-44 lack of reliable statistical evidence for, 232-33 Radcliffe conference on (1992), 2 3 1 - 3 2 women's self-surveillance and, 228, 2 2 9 - 3 1 , 232 Backlash (Faludi), 42, 2 2 7 - 2 9 , 232, 2 3 4 244, 251, 254 see also Faludi, Susan Baer, Sylvia, 86 Bailey, Susan McGee, 177, 184 Balch, Steven, 128 Balk, Julia, 272 Ballad, Annie, 112 Bancroft, Lundy, 191 Barber, James David, 128

Bard College, 1 0 9 - 1 0 Barringer, Felicity, 185 Bart, Pauline, 20, 222 Bartky, Sandra Lee, 27, 42, 2 3 0 - 3 1 , 257, 2 6 3 - 6 4 , 265 Bass, Alison, 185 Bates College, 109 battery, 17, 1 8 8 - 2 0 8 birth defects attributed to, 1 3 - 1 5 , 17, 207 conceptions of "abuse" in, 1 9 7 - 9 8 cross section of statistics on, 1 9 2 - 9 4 emergency room admissions and, 2 0 1 203 in English and American history, 204, 205-7 Gelles and Straus's findings on, 1 9 4 196, 197, 198, 200, 203 Harris/Commonwealth survey on, 1 9 6 198 intimidation of researchers on, 200, 201 among lesbians, 1 9 9 - 2 0 0 "normal" men as perpetrators of, 1 9 8 199 patriarchy and, 1 8 8 - 8 9 , 194, 199, 200, 202 during pregnancy, 13, 195 "rule of thumb" story and, 2 0 3 - 7 on Super Bowl Sunday, 15, 1 8 9 - 9 2 , 203 women engaging in, 1 9 4 - 9 5 Bauer, Dale M., 9 4 - 9 5 Baumrind, Diana, 144 Beauty Myth, The (Wolf), 11, 12, 212, 2 2 7 - 2 9 , 2 3 2 - 3 4 , 2 4 2 - 4 3 , 244, 245, 258 Beauvoir, Simone de, 2 5 6 - 5 7 , 259 Becker, Jerry, 1 7 9 - 8 0 Bedard, Marcia, 93 Beethoven, Ludwig van, 28 Behind Closed Doors, 192 Bell, Derrick, 108 Bell, Janis, 63 Belz, Herman, 122 Berek, Peter, 126 Bergmann, Barbara, 242 Berman, John, 271 Berman, Paul, 229 Bernard, Jessie, 51, 251 Bernikow, Louise, 55 Bernstein, Richard, 83 Biden, Joseph, 193, 195, 201, 212, 221, 224-25

INDEX

biology, 72 birth defects: battery and, 1 3 - 1 5 , 17, 207 maternal age and, 2 3 5 - 3 6 Bittinger, Kathleen, 102 Blackstone, William, 204, 205, 207 Blakeslee, Laurie, 272 Blau, Francine, 239 Block, Jack, 1 4 2 - 4 4 Bloom, Harold, 133 Bobbitt, John Wayne, 45 Bobbitt, Lorena, 45 Boston Globe, 13, 15, 65, 137, 158, 182, 185, 186 climate of resentment at, 4 7 - 4 9 Super Bowl hoax and, 1 8 9 - 9 0 , 191, 192 Botstein, Leon, 110 Bourdon, Karen, 2 5 0 - 5 1 Bower, Bruce, 143, 144, 154 Bowman, Patricia, 25 Bradlee, Ben, Jr., 4 7 - 4 8 Brandeis University, 1 1 1 - 1 2 Breslau, Naomi, 218 Brophy,Jere, 165 BrotherPeace, 193 Broun, Elizabeth, 270 Brown, Shawn, 9 3 - 9 4 Brownmiller, Susan, 243, 244 Brown University, 133, 145 Brumberg, Joan, 1 1 - 1 2 Bryant, Anne, 139, 141, 142, 149, 168, 186, 187 Buel, Sarah, 14, 17, 224 bulimia, 12 Bunch, Charlotte, 64, 232 Bureau of Justice Statistics, 209, 210, 223 business schools, 236 Butler, Johnnella, 1 2 4 - 2 5 , 130 call-outs, supposed gender bias and, 162, 165, 166 "Call to Action" brochure, 139, 141, 1 4 5 146, 1 4 7 - 4 8 , 1 5 1 - 5 2 Campbell, Patricia, 177 Carter, Angela, 266 Cash, Thomas, 233 Cassais, John, 108 Cavett, Dick, 2 8 - 2 9 CBS, 190 censorship, 255, 263, 2 6 8 - 6 9 , 2 7 0 - 7 3 Center for Epidemiologic Studies (CES), 249, 2 5 0 - 5 1 , 252

309

Change, 6 9 - 7 0 Chicago Tribune, 137, 146, 194 childbearing, women's work histories and, 241 children: self-esteem in, 1 3 7 - 5 2 , 154, 157, 253; see also "Shortchanging Girls, Shortchanging America" sexual harassment ascribed to, 46 Children's Museum (Denver), 140 China, respect for Western science in, 83 Christ, Carol P., 104 Christian Science Monitor, 194 Chronicle of Higher Education, 127, 262, 263-64 Civil Rights Commission, U.S., 207 classroom, feminist, 8 7 - 1 1 7 anxiety and rage infused in, 8 7 - 8 8 blurring of vital distinctions in, 98 campus behavior resulting from, 1 0 9 110 confidentiality rule in, 8 8 - 8 9 , 99, 100 ground rules for, 9 8 - 1 0 1 immunity to criticism in, 95, 9 6 - 9 7 , 100, 1 0 1 - 3 indoctrination in, 9 5 - 9 7 intolerance resulting from, 107, 108 nonfeminist classrooms affected by, 106-7, 112-16 objectivity denied in, 9 7 - 9 8 , 109 preparation for world of work and culture lacking in, 9 0 - 9 1 recalcitrant or resistant students in, 9 1 95, 1 0 1 - 3 recruitment as goal of, 92 safe atmosphere for open discussion in, 88-89 student complaints about, 9 4 - 9 5 , 101— 103 worldview in, 96 click experiences, 5 4 - 5 5 , 81 Clinton, Bill, 81 CNN, 204 Cohen, Carl, 94 Cohen, Muriel, 47, 48 Colby, Anne, 152 Colgate University, 272 collective guilt, 42, 43, 4 4 - 4 7 children included in, 46 College Board, 176 colleges and universities: academic freedom endangered in, 121, 122, 128

310

INDEX

colleges and universities (cont.) faculty appointments in, 119, 1 2 6 - 2 7 , 129, 133 feminist control of bureaucracies in, 1 1 8 - 1 9 , 136 gender-feminized, general effect of, 91 intolerance in, 1 0 7 - 1 3 , 2 7 0 - 7 3 percentage of males vs. females in, 160 SAT scores as predictors of performance in, 1 7 6 - 7 7 supposed rape crisis at, 212, 2 1 8 - 2 2 tenure system in, 242 see also classroom, feminist; curriculum transformation; education; women's studies courses; specific colleges and universities Collier, Michael, 190 Columbia University, 19, 20, 2 1 8 - 1 9 Comins, Catherine, 44 Commentary, 177 common law, battery and, 204, 205, 2 0 6 207 Commonwealth Fund, 16, 1 9 6 - 9 8 , 216, 246-54 Congress, U.S., 138, 141, 147, 151, 1 5 8 160, 168, 172, 181, 201, 224, 273 Connecticut College, 133 consciousness raising, 23 in feminist classroom, 88, 89, 90, 92 conspiracy theories, 2 2 7 - 2 8 , 232 Constitution, U.S., 61 Cook, Blanche Wiesen, 20 Cooner, Liz, 249 Copernicus, 117 Cornell University, 127 Corry, Maureen, 13 Costrell, Robert, 174 Council on Foundations, 158 Courage to Question, The, 131 Cowboys Are My Weakness (Houston), 269 Coyner, Sandra, 1 2 4 - 2 5 Crosby, Faye, 3 6 - 3 7 , 38, 153 cultural literacy, 6 1 - 6 2 cultural pluralism, 76, 8 0 - 8 1 , 8 3 - 8 6 culture, as largely male achievement, 5 4 - 5 5 curriculum transformation, 5 1 - 7 3 , 116, 119-36 administrative support for, 109 appeal of reform vs., 7 8 - 7 9 arts and, 6 2 - 6 5 bureaucratic control and, 1 1 8 - 1 9 criticism not tolerated in, 131, 132, 134, 135

cultural literacy and, 6 1 - 6 2 disparity of men's and women's cultural achievements and, 5 4 - 5 5 faculty hiring process and, 119, 1 2 6 127, 129 faculty reeducation and, 121 financial support for, 53, 82, 1 1 9 - 2 0 , 121, 124, 127 history and, 5 6 - 6 2 , 6 8 - 6 9 as intellectual revolution, 5 1 - 5 2 lack of resistance to, 1 3 4 - 3 6 literature and, 6 4 - 6 5 minority women's critiques of, 7 9 - 8 0 , 82 multiculturalism and, 8 3 - 8 6 opposition to, 128, 1 3 1 - 3 4 organizational support for, 1 2 4 - 2 5 , 127 Parsippany conference on (1993), 54, 8 1 - 8 6 , 92 phase theories of, 6 7 - 7 0 , 121, 123, 173 philosophy and, 71, 126 rationality and, 6 5 - 6 6 reasonable correction of record vs., 56 Schmitz's handbook for, 121 science and, 83 standards of greatness and, 6 3 - 6 5 student evaluations and, 129 tacit cooperation of government personnel in, 1 3 0 - 3 1 Wellesley Report and, 1 7 3 - 7 6 Curtis, Michael, 2 6 3 - 6 4 Daly, Mary, 252 Damon, William, 145, 152 "Dateline," 1 7 0 - 7 2 date rape, 44, 47, 218, 220, 234 Davidson, Terry, 207 Davis, Angela, 108 day care, 237 debating clubs, 175 Declaration of Independence, 34, 35, 62 Decter, Midge, 275 defense guarding, 110 democracies, 2 5 8 - 6 0 respect for people's preferences in, 258-59 self-surveillance in, 2 2 9 - 3 0 depression, 16, 216 Harris/Commonwealth survey on, 2 4 6 254 marriage and, 2 5 1 - 5 2 yearly prevalence of, 250

INDEX

Derrick, Jacques, 1 1 3 - 1 4 desires, "overhauling" of, 257, 259, 263, 264, 2 6 5 - 6 8 Detroit News, 197 Devore, Adam, 94 Didion, Joan, 132 dieting, 228, 229, 231, 2 3 3 - 3 4 Digest oj Educational Statistics, 161 Dines, Gail, 193, 222 Discipline and Punish (Foucault), 229 divorce, economic effects of, 236 Dobisky, Frank, 1 9 0 - 9 1 Dobisky Associates, 189, 1 9 0 - 9 1 doctoral degrees, 1 6 0 - 6 1 domestic violence, see battery Donaldson, Stephen, 225 Donner Foundation, 126 "Doonesbury," 172 Down syndrome, 2 3 5 - 3 6 Driscoll, Jack, 48 Duke University, 130 Dunn, Thomas, 12 Dworkin, Andrea, 224, 272 Dziech, Billie, 185 earnings, gender gap in, 2 3 7 - 4 2 eating disorders, 1 1 - 1 2 , 15, 188, 233, 269 Edelman, Lee, 1 0 5 - 6 Edington, K., 9 2 - 9 3 education, 5 0 - 1 8 7 , 2 3 8 - 3 9 AAUW study on gender bias in, 16, 1 5 7 - 8 1 ; see also Wellesley Report appeal of transformationism in, 7 8 - 7 9 feminist epistemologies and, 7 4 - 7 8 , 252 indoctrination vs., 9 6 - 9 7 self-esteem and, 138, 1 4 9 - 5 1 surveys on sexual harassment in, 1 8 1 186 in U.S. vs. abroad, 163, 1 7 9 - 8 1 see also classroom, feminist; colleges and universities; curriculum transformation; women's studies courses Educational Testing Service (ETS), 1 6 2 163, 180 Education Department, U.S., 159, 160, 161, 164, 178 Education Digest, 151 "Education Is Not Enough," 202 Education Week, 182 elitism, gender feminists charged with, 79-81

311

Ellman, Mary, 66 Elshtain, Jean Bethke, 132 emergency room admissions, battery and, 201-3 Engels, Friedrich, 202 engineering, gender gap in, 1 7 4 - 7 5 Enlightenment, 2 2 - 2 3 , 51 epistemologies, 7 4 - 7 8 , 252 gynocentric, dangers of, 7 6 - 7 7 , 78 standpoint theory and, 7 4 - 7 5 Equal Rights Amendment (ERA), 2 4 3 - 4 4 equity feminists, 22, 53, 274 in academia, 51, 55 epistemologies and, 77, 78 gender feminists vs., 134, 135, 230, 237 rape as viewed by, 2 2 4 - 2 5 Erickson, Lois, 114 "Eurocentrism" charges, 8 3 - 8 4 Evergreen State College, 125 Ewing, Charles Patrick, 190 excellence, male conceptions of, 6 4 - 6 5 extracurricular activities, 160 Failing at Fairness (M. and D. Sadker), 162, 164 Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR), 189, 1 9 1 - 9 2 Faludi, Susan, 42, 45, 158, 212, 223, 2 2 7 - 2 9 , 2 3 4 - 4 4 , 245, 251, 254, 255 earnings disparity cited by, 2 3 7 - 4 2 errors attributed to, 2 3 4 - 3 7 , 2 3 8 - 4 2 feminist critics derided by, 2 4 3 - 4 4 self-surveillance postulated by, 228, 229, 232 Family Violence Prevention Fund, 203 Fanon, Franz, 23, 202 fantasies, "overhauling" of, 257, 263, 264, 265-68 Fasting Girls (Brumberg), 1 1 - 1 2 fatherhood, 2 5 5 - 5 6 Fay, Elizabeth, 1 0 1 - 2 Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), 195 rape statistics of, 209, 210, 223 Fee, Elizabeth, 66 femininity, 230, 231, 234 Femininity and Domination (Bartky), 257 feminism: college women's dissociation from, 18 Old vs. New, 2 2 - 2 5 see also equity feminists; gender feminists; women's movement; specific topics

312

INDEX

Feminism, 7 9 - 8 0 Feminism and Values, 104 Feminist Dictionary, 193 Ferguson, Ann, 52, 92, 265 Fichte, Johann Gottlieb, 175 Final Report: Faculty Development for Effectiveness and Equity in College Teaching (M. and D. Sadker), 164 Final Report: A Study of Sex Equity in Classroom Education (Lockheed), 167 Fink, Laurie, 222 Finn, Chester, 61 Fire with Fire (Wolf), 2 4 4 - 4 5 Fish, Stanley, 130 Fisher, Stephen, 103 Flanders, Laura, 189 Flitcraft, Anne, 2 0 1 - 2 Ford Foundation, 53, 82, 116, 124, 125, 131, 199, 232 foregone conclusions, 96 Forster, E. M., 188 Fortune, 177, 236 Foucault, Michel, 1 1 3 - 1 4 , 202, 2 2 9 - 3 0 , 232, 253 Fox-Genovese, Elizabeth, 128, 1 3 1 - 3 2 , 135 Free to Be You and Me (Thomas), 130 French, Marilyn, 19, 27, 4 3 - 4 4 , 45 Frick, Martha, 139 Friedan, Betty, 23, 24, 243, 2 5 6 - 5 7 , 274 Friedlander, Lee, 272 Friedman, Marilyn, 2 5 8 - 5 9 , 262, 263, 265, 266 Fruman, Norman, 1 1 3 - 1 4 Fund for the Improvement of PostSecondary Education (FIPSE), 1 2 4 125 Futter, Ellen, 2 5 3 - 5 4 Gallup polls, 250 Gandy, Kim, 45 Gardiner, Linda, 71 Garnett, P., 167 Gelles, Richard J., 1 9 4 - 9 6 , 197, 198, 200, 203 "Gender Bias in the Prediction of College Course Performance" (McCormack and McLeod), 177 Gender Equity in Education Act, 138, 151, 1 5 8 - 6 0 , 162, 168, 171, 172, 179, 181, 273 gender feminists: anger theme of, 1 9 - 2 2 , 2 4 - 3 3 , 42

disillusioned with classically liberal feminism, 2 2 - 2 4 education transformed by, 5 0 - 1 8 7 ; see also classroom, feminist; curriculum transformation; women's studies courses epistemologies of, 7 4 - 7 8 , 252 equity feminists vs., 134, 135, 230, 237 female critics of, 1 3 1 - 3 3 , 2 4 3 - 4 4 grass roots constituency lacked by, 18 minority women's critiques of, 7 9 - 8 1 , 82 politics of resentment and, 4 1 - 4 9 rectitude imposed by, 2 5 6 - 7 3 self-preoccupation of, 2 5 - 2 9 see also specific topics Genovese, Eugene, 128, 131 George, Linda, 218 Gerstel, Naomi, 144 Gibbs, Nancy, 236 Gilbert, Neil, 2 1 2 - 1 3 , 222, 224 Gilligan, Carol, 114, 139, 140, 1 5 1 - 5 4 , 155, 252 critics of, 1 5 2 - 5 4 "Glasnost in Two Cultures" conference (1991), 3 8 - 4 0 Glass, Ira, 169, 170 "glass ceiling," 241 goddesses, 80 Goldberg, Edward, 32, 54, 8 2 - 8 3 Goldberger, Nancy, 154 Goldsmid, Paula, 134 Gone with the Wind (Mitchell), 257, 2 6 2 263, 264, 265, 266 Goodman, Ellen, 47, 4 8 - 4 9 , 201, 234 "Good Morning America," 189 Gordon, Margaret, 2 1 7 - 1 8 Gorenberg, Gershom, 268 Gorov, Lynda, 1 8 9 - 9 0 , 191 Gould, Virginia, 8 9 - 9 0 Goya, Francisco de, 2 7 0 - 7 1 Greenberg-Lake Associates, 137, 140, 141, 145, 148, 149, 158, 253 Greer, Germaine, 23, 24, 243, 244 Griffith, Elisabeth, 35 Grimké sisters, 22 Groff, April, 217 guilt, see collective guilt Gurevich, David, 39, 40 Guy-Sheftall, Beverly, 81, 82, 131 gynocentrism, 2 1 - 2 2 , 24 Haack, Susan, 7 5 - 7 6 , 78, 132 Hague, Rebecca, 132

INDEX

Handlin, Oscar, 8 4 - 8 5 harassment: intellectual, 116 see also sexual harassment Hardin, Paul, 272 Harding, Sandra, 66, 7 2 - 7 3 , 81, 83, 109, 136 Harris, Lis, 261 Louis Harris and Associates polls, 16 on battery, 1 9 6 - 9 8 on rape, 2 0 9 - 1 0 , 2 1 6 - 1 7 , 223 on sexual harassment, 1 8 4 - 8 6 on women's well-being, 2 4 6 - 5 4 Hart, Heather, 1 1 1 - 1 2 Harter, Susan, 1 4 3 - 4 4 Hartung, Beth, 93 Harvard Crimson, 2 5 - 2 6 Harvard University, 112 Harward, Donald, 109 Hasidic women, 261 Hawkins, Jim, 1 2 8 - 2 9 Heilbrun, Carolyn, 1 9 - 2 1 , 22, 45, 51 Held, Virginia, 26, 75 Hellman, Peter, 2 1 8 - 1 9 Henry Ford Hospital (Detroit), 201 heterosexuality, disapproval of, 112 Hewlett, Sylvia Ann, 131, 2 4 3 - 4 4 hierarchial approaches, 6 4 - 6 5 Hill, Anita, 25 Hindman, James, 1 2 3 - 2 4 Hirsch, Barton J., 143 Hiscock, Philip, 2 0 4 - 5 history, 54, 5 6 - 6 2 , 97 Mcintosh's phases and, 6 8 - 6 9 revision of, 5 7 - 5 8 , 5 9 - 6 2 role of men vs. women in, 5 6 - 5 7 , 5 8 59 social vs. political, 57 Hitchcock, Alfred, 105, 106 Hoeffler, Lois, 249, 2 5 2 - 5 3 Hogan, Candice Taylor, 36 Hohler, Bob, 191, 192 Holtby, Winifred, 19, 24 House Judiciary Committee, 224 housewives, 242, 2 5 6 - 5 7 Houston, Pam, 269 "How Schools Shortchange Girls," 1 5 7 181 see also Wellesley Report How to Make the World a Better Place for Women in Five Minutes a Day, 192

313

Hughes, Donna, 111 humor, 2 8 - 2 9 , 130, 255 Hunt, Richard, 33 immigrant experiences, 8 4 - 8 5 immunology, 72 In a Different Voice (Gilligan), 152 incest, 100 indignation, righteous or moral, 4 1 - 4 2 indoctrination: all teaching viewed as, 9 5 - 9 6 , 9 7 - 9 8 normal education vs., 9 6 - 9 7 intellectual harassment, 116 interior disciplines, theory of, 2 2 9 - 3 0 , 232 International Assessment of Educational Progress (IAEP), 1 6 2 - 6 3 International Crime Rate, 223 "In the Eye of the Storm" conference (1992), 2 3 1 - 3 2 Ireland, Patricia, 13, 4 2 - 4 3 , 45 Iroquois, 6 0 - 6 1 Isaac, Nancy, 15, 190 "It's All in What You Ask," 119 Jacobsen, Carol, 272 Jaggar, Alison, 2 3 - 2 4 , 5 1 - 5 2 , 258, 259 Jane Eyre (Brontë), 2 3 7 - 3 8 Japan, math achievement in, 1 7 9 - 8 0 Jardine, Alice, 2 0 - 2 1 , 2 5 - 2 6 Jefferson, Thomas, 62 Jennings, Peter, 223 Johns Hopkins University, 193 Johnson, Mary, 2 4 8 - 4 9 , 250 Jones, M. Gail, 167 Jong, Erica, 243, 244, 275 Journal of Educational Measurement, 177 Journal of the American Medical Association, 201, 202 Judaism, 261 Justice Department, U.S., 192, 195 rape statistics of, 209, 210, 223 Kaminer, Wendy, 275 Kanin, Eugene, 217 Katz, Janet, 190 Kauffman, Linda, 39 Keena, Heather, 102 Keller, Evelyn Fox, 7 1 - 7 2 Kennedy, Edward, 159, 201 Keohane, Nannerl, 232 Kerby, Phil, 255 Khouri, Callie, 155

314

INDEX

Kilpatrick, Dean, 210, 2 1 5 - 1 6 , 217, 223, 224 King, Dixie, 106 Kirwan, William, 1 1 9 - 2 0 Klein, Andrew, 1 9 8 - 9 9 knowing: as act of aggression, 66 feminist epistemologies and, 7 4 - 7 8 , 252 male vs. female ways of, 175 "separate" vs. "connected," 67 Koch, Ed, 108 Kolodny, Annette, 29, 8 1 - 8 2 , 86, 129 Koppel, Ted, 186 Koss, Mary, 2 1 0 - 1 5 , 217, 222, 2 2 3 - 2 4 , 234 Kramer, Rita, 177 Krentz, Jayne Ann, 2 6 7 - 6 8 Kuehl, Sheila, 189, 190, 1 9 1 - 9 2 , 2 0 3 - 4 , 222 Labor Bureau, 236 Lamm, Richard, 128 Landers, Ann, 12 Lasch, Christopher, 1 5 3 - 5 4 law degrees, 238 Lee, Denise, 45 Lefkowitz, Mary, 131, 132, 275 Lehman, Betsy, 48 Lehrman, Karen, 90, 275 Leo, John, 1 7 5 - 7 6 , 223 Lerner, Gerda, 51, 55, 69 lesbians, 37, 265 battery among, 1 9 9 - 2 0 0 Lessing, Doris, 131, 132, 133 Levin, Margarita, 73 Levin, Richard, 1 3 3 - 3 4 Lewis, Jennifer, 112 LeWitt, Sol, 270 "Lifetime Magazine," 186 Lindbergh, Anne Morrow, 5 9 - 6 0 Lindbergh, Charles, 59 Lindsey, Michael, 191, 192, 208 Lingua Franca, 2 7 1 - 7 2 linguistic reform, 50 linguistic reversal, 112 Lionhearted, 1 1 0 - 1 1 Lipset, Seymour Martin, 128 "lipstick lesbians," 265 Lipsyte, Robert, 189, 190 literature, 54, 56, 61 standards of greatness in, 6 4 - 6 5 Lockheed, Marlaine, 167

logic, 6 5 - 6 6 , 71 Longenecker, Marlene, 124-25 Los Angeles Daily Journal, 222 Los Angeles Times, 158 Louis, Deborah, 1 2 - 1 3 Lovenheim, Barbara, 2 3 4 - 3 6 Lowe, Miss (teacher), 1 7 0 - 7 1 Ludington, Sybil, 58 Lukerman, Fred, 114, 115 Lutz, Frank, 6 1 - 6 2 Lyle, Katy, 181 McClary, Susan, 28 McClintock, Barbara, 72 McCormack, Robert, 177 McDowell, Jeanne, 14 McGrory, Brian, 48 McGrory, Mary, 194 Mcintosh, Peggy, 62, 65, 6 7 - 6 9 , 79, 81, 1 1 8 - 1 9 , 120, 121, 123, 127 Wellesley Report and, 1 7 3 - 7 4 , 1 7 5 - 7 6 McKee, Alice, 141, 158, 185 MacKinnon, Catharine, 25, 45, 66, 210, 2 2 3 - 2 4 , 231, 272 McLeod, Mary, 177 McNaron, Toni, 117 "MacNeil/Lehrer News Hour," 39 Maguigan, Holly, 207 Mahler, Gustav, 28 Mann, Judy, 1 5 4 - 5 5 , 201 March of Dimes, 1 3 - 1 5 , 17, 201, 207 Marcus, Jane, 20 Marcus, Ruth Barcan, 132, 135 Marcuse, Herbert, 23, 202 Marks, Elaine, 64 marriage, well-being and, 2 5 1 - 5 2 Martin, Amanda, 1 1 0 - 1 1 Martin, Del, 2 0 6 - 7 Martinka, Laurie, 47 Marx, Karl, 23, 202, 229 Maryland, University of, 4 4 - 4 5 , 119-20, 1 2 1 - 2 2 , 127 master's degrees, 1 6 0 - 6 1 , 238 Masters, Kim, 45 mathematics, 71 denigration of vertical approaches to, 174-75 gender gap in, 158, 160, 161, 1 6 2 - 6 3 , 1 7 4 - 7 5 , 178, 180 Japanese children's achievements in, 179-80 SAT scores in, 176-77, 178 Mattheis, Floyd, 179, 180

INDEX

May, Alberta, 130 medical degrees, 238 Mednick, Martha, 153 Meeting at the Crossroads (Gilligan), 154 Meizlish, Deborah, 94 Memphis State University, 9 8 - 9 9 menstruation, 1 0 3 - 4 Merkowitz, David, 161 Miami University, 9 4 - 9 5 Michigan, University of, 9 3 - 9 4 , 272 Mickley, Diane, 12 Middle Tennessee State University, 1 2 2 124 Mikulski, Barbara, 147, 159 Mill, John Stuart, 259 Millett, Kate, 23 Millican, Michael, 108 Mills College, 36, 91 Minnesota, sexual harassment policies for children in, 46 Minnesota, University of, 91, 9 8 - 9 9 , 104, 1 1 3 - 1 5 , 129 complaints about courses at, 1 0 2 - 3 rape crisis center at, 2 2 0 - 2 1 Scandinavian studies affair at, 1 1 4 - 1 5 Minnich, Elizabeth, 58, 6 3 - 6 4 , 65, 79, 81, 86, 120 Mirabella, 193, 200, 253 Mischler, William, 114, 115 Mismeasure oj Woman, The (Tavris), 1 5 2 153 misogyny: battery and, 199 rape as manifestation of, 2 2 2 - 2 3 , 225, 226 Mitchell, Linda, 189, 1 9 1 - 9 2 Mitchell, Maria, 58 Modern Language Association, 116 Montreal, University of, 26 Moore, Dennis Damon, 127 moral reasoning, 1 5 2 - 5 4 Morgenson, Gretchen, 236 Morning After, The (Roiphe), 214, 219 Moses, Yolanda, 76, 80 Mother Jones, 90 Motherself (Rabuzzi), 2 6 - 2 7 Mott, Lucretia, 33 Mount Holyoke College, 91, 126 Moving into Adolescence (Simmons), 144 Ms., 54 rape survey conducted by, 2 1 0 - 1 5 , 217, 222, 2 2 3 - 2 4 Ms. Foundation, 136

315

"Take Our Daughters to Work Day" sponsored by, 1 5 4 - 5 6 Mullen, Patricia, 114, 115 multiculturalism, 76, 8 0 - 8 1 , 8 3 - 8 6 Mundy, Liza, 2 7 1 - 7 2 Munson, Lynne, 103 Murdoch, Iris, 131, 132 Murphy, Eddie, 1 1 1 - 1 2 music, 28, 62 Musil, Caryn McTighe, 53, 1 2 4 - 2 5 , 127, 131 Mussell, Kay, 2 4 5 - 4 6 Muybridge, Eadweard, 270 Naked Maja, The (Goya), 2 7 0 - 7 1 Narbikova, Valerya, 40 Nasar, Sylvia, 2 3 8 - 3 9 , 242 National Assessment of Education Progress Tests (NAEP), 160 National Association of Scholars (NAS), 128, 129, 131 National Center for Health Statistics, 12 National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, 1 9 3 - 9 4 , 1 9 5 - 9 6 National Council for Research on Women, 116, 1 5 9 - 6 0 , 231 National Council on Self-Esteem, 140 National Education Association, 93 National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), 194, 2 5 0 - 5 1 , 252 National Lesbian Convention, 30 National Organization of Women (NOW), 45, 136, 181, 1 8 2 - 8 3 National Women's Studies Association (NWSA) 51 1992 conference of, 2 9 - 3 3 , 53, 79, 9 1 92 National Women's Study, 210, 2 1 5 - 1 6 , 217, 223 Native Americans, 6 0 - 6 1 , 80 NBC, 1 7 0 - 7 2 , 190, 191 NEA Today, 146 Nebraska, University of, 271 "New Agenda of Women for Higher Education, The," 125 New Amazons, 40 New Feminism, see gender feminists New Hampshire, University of, 1 1 5 - 1 6 New Jersey Project, 54, 66, 8 2 - 8 3 Newsweek, 212, 237 New York, 2 1 8 - 1 9 New Yorker, 133, 261 New York Review of Books, 132

316

INDEX

New York State Education Department, 140 New York Times, 20, 2 8 - 2 9 , 80, 83, 137, 139, 143, 152, 158, 185, 189, 193, 225, 234, 2 3 8 - 3 9 , 268, 270 New York Times Book Review, 2 3 4 - 3 6 New York Times Magazine, 222 "Nightline," 186 Nikolayeva, Olesya, 39 1984 (Orwell), 9 7 - 9 8 North Carolina, University of, 272 Northwestern, 103 Nye, Andrea, 24 Nyhan, David, 48 Oakland Tribune, 190 Oberlin College, 134 objectivity, denial of possibility of, 9 7 - 9 8 , 109, 114 Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI), 178 Old Dominion University, 189, 190, 192, 233 Old Feminism, see equity feminists Olenick, Michael, 102 Olsen, Tillie, 89 O'Neill, June, 239, 241 oppression: assumptions about, in feminist classroom, 99 epistemic advantage supposedly conferred by, 7 4 - 7 5 Ortiz, Bonnie, 270 Orwell, George, 9 7 - 9 8 , 259 Ozick, Cynthia, 131, 132, 133 Package, Anne, 47 Paffenroth, Kim, 107 Paglia, Camille, 133, 134, 218, 222, 2 6 4 265, 274 Paley, Grace, 39 Palmer, Thomas, 65, 185 Parade, 1 5 4 - 5 5 Parrot, Andrea, 220 patriarchy, 2 4 2 - 4 3 , 262 battery and, 1 8 8 - 8 9 , 194, 199, 200, 202 disdain for hapless victims of, 2 5 6 - 5 8 rape associated with, 223, 225 self-surveillance in, 230, 231 struggle against, in feminist classroom, 88, 89, 91, 95, 96, 100 Pauley, Jane, 1 7 0 - 7 2 PBS, 1 6 8 - 6 9 , 170

pedagogy, see classroom, feminist; curriculum transformation; education Pennsylvania State College, 1 1 0 - 1 1 Pennsylvania State University, 2 7 0 - 7 1 Peters, Regina, 112 Petersen, Anne, 1 4 4 - 4 5 pharmacy, 2 3 8 - 3 9 Phi Deltan Kappan, 163, 164 Phillips, Stone, 170, 172 philosophy, 126 classical, 71 feminist epistemologies and, 7 4 - 7 8 , 252 of science, 7 1 - 7 3 Piercy, Marge, 2 6 8 - 6 9 Pittsburgh, University of, 272 Plato, 41 Pleck, Elizabeth, 2 0 5 - 6 Pogash, Carol, 237 Pointer, The, 1 6 5 - 6 6 political correctness, 2 5 3 - 5 4 , 274 satirization of, 1 1 0 - 1 1 Pollitt, Katha, 214 Popper, Sir Karl, 96 pregnant women, battery of, 13, 195 Princeton University, 219 prison rape, 225 Psychiatric Disorders in America, 250, 251 psychological abuse, 216 Psychological Bulletin, 2 5 1 - 5 2 Quindlen, Anna, 201, 253 Rabuzzi, Kathryn Allen, 2 6 - 2 7 racism, coupling of sexism and, 99, 108 Racism and Sexism, 108 Ramstad, Jim, 212 rape, 55, 88, 100, 188, 2 0 9 - 2 6 , 2 6 2 - 6 3 all men viewed as capable of, 4 4 - 4 5 allocation of public funds related to, 219-21 as civil rights issue, 224 as crime of gender bias, 224, 225 date, 44, 47, 218, 220, 234 expanded definition of, 211, 2 1 2 - 1 6 , 217 gender feminists' agenda and, 2 2 2 - 2 3 government statistics on, 2 1 0 - 1 1 , 223 Harris poll on, 2 0 9 - 1 0 , 2 1 6 - 1 7 , 223 as manifestation of misogyny, 2 2 2 - 2 3 , 225, 226 Ms. Report on, 2 1 0 - 1 5 , 217, 222, 2 2 3 224

INDEX

in prison, 225 researchers generating low numbers for, 217-18 supposed crisis of, on college campuses, 212, 2 1 8 - 2 2 violence in America society and, 223, 225-26 rape crisis centers, 219, 2 2 0 - 2 1 rationality, 6 5 - 6 6 , 71 Ravitch, Diane, 61, 1 7 1 - 7 2 , 238, 275 Rawlings, Gail, 221 Reason, 237 Reich, Robert, 254 religious fundamentalism, 2 6 0 - 6 1 Removing Bias, 130 Rendell, Steven, 191 Renzetti, Claire, 1 9 9 - 2 0 0 "Report to the Professions," 89 resentment, 4 1 - 4 9 climate of, at Boston Globe, 4 7 - 4 9 collective guilt and, 42, 43, 4 4 - 4 7 victimization feelings and, 42 Reuters, 248 Review of Research in Education, 164, 166 Revolution from Within (Steinem), 11, 12, 146-47 Richards, Ann, 33, 147 Richards, Janet Radcliffe, 27 righteous indignation, 4 1 - 4 2 Ringle, Ken, 15, 1 9 0 - 9 1 , 192, 208 Robison, Chris, 271 Robson, Philip, 142 Roe, Sam, 213, 2 1 4 - 1 5 , 217, 218, 2 1 9 221, 224 Roiphe, Katie, 214, 219, 222, 2 7 4 - 7 5 role models, 59, 132 romance, 257, 259, 2 6 2 - 6 3 , 264, 2 6 5 268 romance novels, 2 4 5 - 4 6 , 2 6 7 - 6 8 Romer, Roy, 139 Roosevelt, Eleanor, 20 Rorty, Richard, 229 Rose, Hilary, 7 4 - 7 5 Rosenstone, Professor, 94 Rosser, Sue, 72 Rothenberg, Paula, 32, 66, 81, 82, 86, 108, 134 Rousseau, Jean-Jacques, 153 Ruddick, Sarah, 20 "rule of thumb" story, 2 0 3 - 7 Russia, women poets and novelists from, 38-40

317

Rutgers University, 88, 89, 90, 9 8 - 9 9 Ruthchild, Géraldine, 55 Sadker, Myra and David, 139, 1 6 1 - 6 2 , 163-66, 168-73 data-gathering techniques of, 1 6 4 - 6 5 , 169-70 media appearances of, 1 6 8 - 6 9 , 1 7 0 171, 1 7 2 - 7 3 Sandler, Bernice, 46 San Francisco Chronicle, 158, 197, 250 Santa Monica City College, 1 2 8 - 2 9 Sartre, Jean-Paul, 23, 27 Sattel, Sue, 46 Saxonhouse, Arlene, 94 scare quotes, 66 Schlesinger, Arthur, Jr., 8 4 - 8 5 Schmitz, Betty, 119, 1 2 0 - 2 1 , 122, 125, 130-31 Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT), 1 7 6 - 7 8 , 179 schools, see classroom, feminist; colleges and universities; curriculum transformation; education; women's studies courses Schroeder, Patricia, 138, 159, 162, 201, 229 Schuster, Marilyn R., 69, 81, 96, 109, 116 Schuster, Sharon, 139, 140, 141, 149, 157, 1 7 7 - 7 8 science, 64, 66, 136, 176, 180 challenge to objectivity of, 109 denigration of vertical approaches to, 174-75 gender feminist critique of, 7 1 - 7 3 , 83 gender gap in, 158, 160, 161, 1 7 4 - 7 5 , 178 women's supposed epistemic advantage in, 7 4 - 7 5 Science, 179, 180 Science News, 143, 154 Scruton, Roger, 96 Scully, Diana, 44 Seidel, Kathleen Gilles, 2 4 5 - 4 6 , 267 self-esteem, 16, 1 3 7 - 5 6 , 181, 247 AAUW study on, 1 3 7 - 5 2 , 154, 157, 253; see also "Shortchanging Girls, Shortchanging America" academic performance and, 1 4 9 - 5 1 books on, 140 concept of, 142 scientific study of, 1 4 2 - 4 3 "Take Our Daughters to Work Day" and, 1 5 4 - 5 6

318

INDEX

Seligman, Daniel, 177 Senate, U.S., 25 Seneca Falls convention (1848), 3 3 - 3 5 Seventeen, 1 8 1 - 8 4 Sewall, Gilbert, 61 sex/gender feminism, see gender feminists sex objects, men vs. women as, 2 6 4 - 6 5 sexual desire, 231 sexual harassment, 47 charged in academia, 9 3 - 9 4 , 1 1 4 - 1 6 , 270-71 defense guarding and, 110 Harris poll on, 1 8 4 - 8 6 by juveniles, 46 Wellesley study on, 1 8 1 - 8 4 sexuality, 46, 112, 257, 2 6 2 - 6 3 , 2 6 4 - 6 5 Sexual Personae (Paglia), 133 Sexual Politics (Millett), 23 Shakespeare, William, 1 3 3 - 3 4 Shalala, Donna, 248, 249, 254 Sharp, Patricia, 110 Sheffield, Carole J., 8 7 - 8 8 Shoenberg, Nara, 213, 2 1 4 - 1 5 , 217, 218, 2 1 9 - 2 1 , 224 "Shortchanging Girls, Shortchanging America," 1 3 7 - 5 2 , 154, 157, 253 AAUW promotion of, 1 3 9 - 4 0 , 141, 147-48 African-Americans' responses in, 1 4 9 150 congressional response to, 138, 151 critical responses to, 140, 1 4 2 - 4 5 dubious aspects of, 138, 1 4 5 - 5 1 hard data for, 1 4 1 - 4 2 , 145, 148 media response to, 137, 140, 146 questions asked in, 1 4 5 - 4 6 summary of findings in, 141 siblings, violence among, 194 Silva, Donald, 1 1 5 - 1 6 Silver, Brenda, 21 Simmons, Roberta, 1 4 3 - 4 4 , 145 Simon, Rita, 132 Simpson, Allen, 115 SLOPs (self-selected listener opinion polls), 1 8 3 - 8 4 Smeal, Eleanor, 30, 31, 42 Smith, Barbara, 81 Smith, Beverly, 81 Smith, T o m W . , 183, 186 Smith, William Kennedy, 25 Smith College, 3 6 - 3 8 , 60, 91 Snowe, Olympia, 159 social sciences, 54, 56, 59, 61

Society for Women in Philosophy (SWIP), 262 Sommers, Fred, 128 Sommers, Tamler, 2 3 7 - 3 8 Sontag, Susan, 132 "Sonya Live," 204 "Southern Women: Black and White," 8 9 90 Sowell, Thomas, 98 Spiller, Hortense, 40 sports, 160 standpoint theory, 7 4 - 7 5 Stanton, Domna, 40 Stanton, Elizabeth Cady, 22, 24, 25, 33, 34, 35, 77, 221 Stark, Evan, 2 0 1 - 2 Stein, Nan, 46, 1 8 1 - 8 4 , 186 Steindam, Sharon, 1 6 8 - 6 9 , 171 Steinem, Gloria, 11, 12, 21, 22, 146-47, 149, 1 5 4 - 5 5 , 1 8 8 - 8 9 , 210, 259, 260, 261 Steinfels, Peter, 80 Steinmetz, Suzanne K., 200 Stevenson, Harold, 151, 179, 180, 181 Stiles, Joan, 191 Stimpson, Catharine, 21, 3 9 - 4 0 , 66, 6 9 70,81 Storm, Matt, 48 Stratton, Peter, 1 0 7 - 8 Straumanis, Joan, 104 ' Straus, Murray A., 194-96, 197, 198, 200, 203 Strauss, Richard, 28 Student Body, The (Balk), 272 Stumhofer, Nancy, 2 7 0 - 7 1 suicide, 161 Super Bowl Sunday, battery on, 15, 1 8 9 192, 203 Takaki, Ronald, 8 3 - 8 6 , 108 "Take Our Daughters to Work Day," 1 5 4 156 Tal, Kali, 1 0 0 - 1 0 1 "Talk of the Nation," 1 6 8 - 6 9 , 170 Tavris, Carol, 1 5 2 - 5 3 Taylor, Harriet, 22, 259, 2 6 2 - 6 3 Taylor, Humphrey, 247, 249, 2 5 2 - 5 3 teacher attention, 162, 1 6 3 - 6 8 academic achievement and, 165, 166, 167 lack of scholarly articles on, 1 6 3 - 6 4 teaching, viewed as form of indoctrination, 9 5 - 9 6 , 9 7 - 9 8 Tennessee Board of Regents, 122, 124

INDEX

textbooks, 108 for women's studies courses, 7 9 - 8 0 , 8 7 - 8 8 , 104, 203 Thernstrom, Abigail, 107 Thernstrom, Stephan, 85, 86 thinking, vertical vs. lateral, 67 Thirty-Nine Steps, The, 105, 106 Thomas, Clarence, 25 Thomas, Dawn, 1 6 5 - 6 6 Thomas, Mario, 130, 155 Thought and Action, 93 Tiger, Lionel, 4 6 - 4 7 Tikkun, 268 Time, 13, 14, 158, 193, 198, 201, 204, 207, 217, 236 Tobin, K., 167 Tokyo University, 179 Toledo Blade, 213, 2 1 4 - 1 5 , 217, 218, 2 1 9 - 2 1 , 224 Tolstaya, Tatyana, 40 transformationism, see curriculum transformation Transformations, 86 Trebilcot, Joyce, 50, 66, 92, 265 Trudeau, Garry, 172 Truely, Walteen Grady, 159 Tufts University, 1 0 5 - 6 Tush, Susan, 8 9 - 9 0 "20/20," 45, 244 UCLA Higher Education Research Institute, 1 6 0 - 6 1 Understanding Sexual Violence (Scully), 44 Uprooted, The (Handlin), 84 US. News & World Report, 1 7 5 - 7 6 Vance, Carol, 272 Van Dyne, Susan R., 69, 81, 96, 109, 116 Van Gelder, Lindsy, 265 Vanity Fair, 45 Vassar College, 44, 104, 112 Vaughan, Hester, 35 Vendler, Helen, 135 veterinary medicine, 2 3 8 - 3 9 victimhood, 42, 88, 89, 2 4 4 - 4 5 violence: of American society, 223, 2 2 5 - 2 6 domestic, see battery Violence Against Women Act (1993), 212, 221, 2 2 4 - 2 5 Violent Betrayal (Renzetti), 1 9 9 - 2 0 0 Virginia Polytechnic, 130

319

Virginia Slims polls, 237 Vitz, Paul, 61 Walker, Lawrence, 152 Walker, Lenore, 189, 191, 192 Wall Street Journal, 197 Walters, Barbara, 244, 245 Walters, Suzanna, 245 Walz, Evelyn, 249 Walzer, Michael, 230 war, 56, 5 8 - 5 9 War Against Women, The (French), 19, 27 Ward, Janie Victoria, 150, 154 Washington, Martha, 59 Washington Post, 15, 1 9 0 - 9 1 , 194, 197, 204 Washington State Board of Education, 130 Wattenberg, Daniel, 45 Weight Watchers, 229, 233, 258 Weiner, Jerry, 186 well-being, Harris/Commonwealth survey on, 2 4 6 - 5 4 Wellesley College, 91 Wellesley College Center for Research on Women, 16, 127, 231 harassment survey of, 1 8 1 - 8 4 Wellesley Report, 1 5 7 - 8 1 AAUW promotion of, 158 attention gap claimed in, 162, 1 6 3 - 6 8 bureaucratic changes recommended in, 178-79 congressional response to, 1 5 8 - 6 0 , 168, 181 data contradictory to findings of, 1 6 0 161, 1 6 2 - 6 3 , 165, 167, 177, 178 Mcintosh's contributions to, 1 7 3 - 7 4 , 175-76 media response to, 158 Ravitch's remarks on, 1 7 1 - 7 2 Sadkers'studies and, 1 6 1 - 6 2 , 1 6 3 - 6 6 , 168-73 SAT scores and, 1 7 6 - 7 8 traditional curriculum denigrated in, 173-76 Whitehead, Caroline, 14, 17 Whitney Museum, 2 6 9 - 7 0 "Wife-Battering in Nineteenth-Century America" (Pleck), 2 0 5 - 6 William Paterson College, 134 Williams, Sue, 269 Winfrey, Oprah, 172 Withers, Josephine, 45

320

INDEX

Wolf, Naomi, 11, 12, 2 8 - 2 9 , 155, 212, 223, 2 2 7 - 2 9 , 2 3 2 - 3 4 , 2 4 2 - 4 3 , 2 4 4 - 4 5 , 258, 264 Wolff, Cynthia, 131 Wollstonecraft, Mary, 22 Women: A Feminist Perspective, 8 7 - 8 8 , 203 women's colleges, 36 women's movement: beginnings of, 3 3 - 3 5 exclusion of men from, 36, 3 7 - 3 8 see also equity feminists; feminism; gender feminists; specific topics Women's Research and Education Institute, 147 Women's Review of Books, 117, 133 women's shelters, 202 women's studies courses, 5 0 - 5 2 , 92, 106, 110, 125, 131, 133, 134 academic vs. unscholarly, 8 9 - 9 0 "feel good" spirit of, 100 general effect of, 89 hostile male students in, 93

menstruation as theme in, 1 0 3 - 4 power wielded by professors of, 1 0 8 - 9 , 113 rules of conduct for, 100-101 Rutgers model for, 88, 89, 90 student complaints about, 1 0 2 - 3 , 1 0 7 108, 109 textbooks for, 7 9 - 8 0 , 8 7 - 8 8 , 104, 203 Women's Ways of Knowing, 67, 252 Wood, Wendy, 144, 152, 185 Woolf, Virginia, 57 Wooster College, 1 0 7 - 9 Working Woman, 235, 237 Year Three: Final Report, Promoting Effectiveness in Classroom Instruction (M. and D. Sadker), 164, 166 Young, Cathy, 214, 237, 275 Young, Iris, 24 Ziltzer, Andrea, 13