7

“Most of all, men find it startling, absurd, insulting, men still behave like men and as long as they do, humorous, to be interviewed as men: as part of the women’s choices in all aspects of sheer day-to-day male condition, as representatives of only one half survival are restricted. of the ‘human’ condition”. (1) Straight and simple

Why is it that after ten years theory and practice of The analysis of patriarchy and related structures, the women’s liberation movement our understanding have created the ‘feminist’ and destroyed ‘feminine’; of patriarchy is so sophisticated, yet our impact on the analysis of patriarchy has not touched the male the behaviour of men has been so small? It is easy to parallel; i.e. the destruction of‘ masculine’ and the be deceived by the apparent simplicity of the question. creation of ‘masculinist . . . a what? Why does it For the past six months, group (as opposed to editorial) even sound like a joke. There have been a few books discussions in Red Rag have been dominated by this around for a number of years, mainly written by issue. The first problem was to try to assess what American men, on the problems of masculinity, and constitutes real progress; it is quite blatant nonsense some feminists have written about the male psyche. to suggest that nothing has changed. Every woman in Phyllis Chesler’s ‘About Men’ is an analysis through the womens’ movement can act as a personal barometer art of the essence of male culture. Because these for such change, but in analysing that change approaches are abstract analyses of patriarchal culture we constantly come back to the point that after ten they do not really come to terms with the nature of years of ‘politicizing’ men, the kind of problems which male behaviour within the system. Why, then, has it arise in personal relations go on the same roundabouts, taken so long for the problem of men as men to be the same pathways and the same compromises, year tackled? Part of the explanation lies within the after year. We may look longingly at the world of historic division of the women’s liberation movement ‘Woman on the Edge of Time’ (2), but most of us want itself. The debate between the socialist feminists some of those experiences now, not just in some future and the radical feminists has been crudely summarised dream. as ‘society oppresses women’ versus ‘men oppress We were all sure that the nature of patriarchy had women’; the debate for those of us involved with it changed, is changing; but none of us were quite so was never that crude. The sophisticated formulations sure about how men had experienced the impact of by socialist feminists on the problem of men, e.g. that change. To be faced, ten years on, with the realisation ‘men oppress women but that oppression cannot be that men still do not relate the analysis of confronted solely individually but must be tackled patriarchy to their own day-to-day behaviour, is a collectively within the power relations of this depressing conclusion. Women still live and engage in society’, have always seemed defensive and weak a world which constantly denies their ‘personhood’; in comparison with the strident enthusiasm of ‘men some succeed in making personal, private and living are the enemy’— straight and simple. It is an incredible compromises which more or less work either with paradox that within the women’s liberation movement, men or without men. However, the problem remains — one of the most pervasive hierarchies of ‘more 8

feminist than thou', the existence of which we all for people to make things differently and deny yet all recognise on sight, has been defined in perceive the world in new ways'. (5). relation to men, not to other women. Many radical This, in effect, says it will happen and all we have feminists say that equally oppressive hierarchies to do is to want it enough. In the same article Sheila also operate based upon assumptions about the ‘real world’ and who does or does not understand Rowbotham also says: political realities. ‘If we stopped viewing patriarchy and capitalism It is quite unfair to criticise the crudity of the as two separate interlocking systems, and looked radical feminist analysis of men when so many so- instead at how sex-gender as well as class and race called socialist women, when scratched, still produce relations have developed historically, we could the old chestnut, ‘but men are people—human avoid a simple category ‘woman’- who must either beings'. What if they are not? Perhaps they are part be a matriarchal stereotype or a hopelessly downtrodden of a deranged majority which is bringing the world victim, and whose fortunes rise and fall to the edge of disaster! This idea may be more than a at the same time as all her sisters’. (6). simple tautology. The problem of patriarchy is not The fact that women experience patriarchy in a the same as the problem of ‘masculinity’, for our variety of ways does not invalidate the use of the analysis of patriarchy has never effectively encompassed theory. However, the main problem with this position the question ‘how will men change?’ We seem, in is that on the other side of the simple category ‘woman’ the women's liberation movement, to confine that there is the simple category 'man'. The most important question to the men we ourselves live with, and the thing you can say about a person in current society theories of how men change have never been abstracted is that they are male or female. It is not, of course, from this raw experience. Ten years on and so little the only classification - but it is the most fundamental. change means we can no longer avoid the issue. Whether we agree that it should be is not the issue, Feminists analyse patriarchy as the collection of but it will not disappear just by insisting that it is not ideological and material forces in society which give the crux. rise to the oppression of women. The origins of patriarchy may be obscure—its practice is not. Women share the experience of being oppressed by patriarchy Sex and class and the awareness of the nature of patriarchy develops from this shared experience; i.e. consciousness-raising. The critique of patriarchy is not a critique of only In their reply to Sheila Rowbotham, Barbara Taylor and Sally Alexander say: one aspect of capitalist society, and the attempts by many male marxists (3) to marginalise the women's ‘Constructing a theory of patriarchal relations is liberation movement in this way have been singularly hazardous, not least because it analyses gender in unsuccessful. It is obviously crucial to any theory of terms wholly different from those of class. But ‘how men change’ to confront male dominated without a theory of gender relations, any attempt socialist ‘politics’ by the lessons to be learned from to ‘marry’ the concepts of sex and class will simply the theory of patriarchy. This political confrontation do for theories of sex what marriage usually does is beginning to take place in many arenas previously for women: dissolve them into the stronger side vacated by women to men (4). These analyses, while of the partnership. It was precisely because a crucial to any change in the power relations within Marxist theory of class conflict, however elaborated, society, still take only an overview of ‘how men could not answer all our questions about change’; what explanations do we have at the sexual conflict that we tried to develop an alternative. present time? If we need to keep the two areas of analysis apart for a time, so be it. Theories are not made A political compromise? all at once'. (7). Celia, I don't oppress Various attempts have been made recently to banish the problem of patriarchy at the level of theory and at women . . . . I try to get the level of practice. If this is accepted, we have no reason to ask the question, ‘how will men change?’ behind the We should do as women have always done—stare at the stereotypes ...... ceiling and wonder if we are quietly going mad; that only we seem to believe that a problem actually exists. Once again the problem is removed from the political arena and our experience simply and completely invalidated because it does not fit the theory. The ‘Beyond the Fragments’ conference is one attempt to abolish patriarchy at the level of practice. The motives of feminists who want desperately to reject ‘men as the enemy’ and enter into some workable political compromise, are all too evident. The conditions within which this can happen are nowhere to be seen. In Sheila Rowbotham's article this romantic idealism is supported by such as: ‘The changes which men and women make . . . need not be regarded simply as a response to the reorganisation of class struggle. Indeed, we could see these shifts in sex-gender relationships as contributing historically towards the creation of suitable conditions 9

There is no sense in which Sheila Rowbotham is defending the Marxist theory of class conflict, but almost unbelievably (but not quite), the following was written in ‘m/f’ No. 2 by Mark Cousins: ‘Marx may be accused of adopting contemporary literary usage in designating such personifications ‘he’, but he cannot be accused of omitting women. Those personifications of capitalist relations, the capitalist and the labourer, are abstract to and indifferent to the problem of sexual difference. Attempts to simply force the concepts to respect that problem merely result in the distortion of the concept’. (8). . . . and we must not do that must we, naughty socialist feminists! Sheila Rowbotham’s argument in no way excludes the category of experience from political theory, in fact one of the main criticisms which can be made is that ‘Beyond the Fragments’ weighs all experiences of oppression equally. This allows her to group blacks, women, gays and tenants’ groups under the same big, magnanimous umbrella. Mark Cousins has no such generosity, in good ‘m/f ''style when reality does not fit the theory - forget reality; Have capitalists been converted to socialism through ‘The concept of mode of production requires, in reason and argument? History would cast doubt on non-communist modes, a class division and a such conversions, so why readily assume that similar social division of labour. But there is no require­ problems do not arise between men, male power and ment that it shall be realised by any definite change? sexual division or indeed any other division as The theory nicely avoids the problem of power and a necessary effect of that primary division. To the allocations of resources within society. It is, attempt to refute this by evidencing instances perhaps, not surprising that this is avoided by the of such sexual divisions in concrete analyses women’s liberation movement as the problem of is to miss the point. At this level of generality revolutionary violence is more complex for socialist and abstraction of the concept mode of feminists than it is for male socialists. production, sexual divisions are not pertinent’. (9). The theory lays too much emphasis on the power of ideas. This is in part a rejection by the women’s Roughly speaking this means that the origin of liberation movement of the more determinist ideas smallpox is not important to the understanding of of socialism, which may have been overemphasised. It what smallpox is, nor to any steps which have to is this somewhat naive belief which is responsible for be taken to overcome it. Insert patriarchy for the phenomenon of conscious women who have access smallpox and the problem is not worthy of discussion. to theory who, nevertheless, reject it in practice. Would that it were so easy to be vaccinated Ideas are a necessary but not total precondition for against Mr. Cousins as it is against smallpox. change. ‘Women’ are therefore to disappear from the The theory does not allow for any discussion of political debate, submerged in the goo of ‘we are sexuality or the steps which need to be taken by men all oppressed’ magnanimity, or eliminated by to raise the antithesis of the discussions on passive, strokes of intellectual terrorism. Fortunately we feminine sexuality which have so preoccupied the won’t go away peacefully but continue to address women’s liberation movement. ourselves to problems as our experience and analysis reveal them. So back to the real problem at hand, Well trained ‘how will men change?’

These are all important drawbacks to the theory How men change— Theory I of change through reason, but the most daunting aspect of this approach to the problem of changing men, is In the early, heady days of the women’s liberation that even where it appears to be succeeding, it often movement, many women believed that society and fails at some crucial point. The theory has worked to government, when confronted by the unfairness of the extent that many feminists now live with men who the oppression and subjugation of women, would are relatively well socialised and who know that beds voluntarily take the necessary steps to correct the situation. get changed, meals get cooked, washing gets done, It followed from this view that men will change floors get cleaned and children get serviced. There are when men are made aware, individually and collectively, many feminists, on the other hand, who have gone of their role as oppressors. The traditional male role through this process only to find that when the would be seen as so overwhelmingly opposed to the crunch comes, usually over ‘her’ job, ‘her’ children, interests of women that men would gladly give the that the years of carefully dismantling a lifetime of advantages of being men in the pursuit of the ideologically male socialisation have failed completely. HE is free necessary equal society. There are a number to go back to ‘society’ in a way which SHE never can. of problems with this theory: Most feminists find that it takes years to make men into livable-with human beings who are capable of 10

predicting the needs of other human beings, being a trick of monumental proportions perpetuated by a sensitive to people and simply caring. Many feminists, political elite that is essentially liberal. That is why the of course, find the whole thing too problematic and, accusation by workerist Marxists— that the women’s after the second or third time round, give up the ghost liberation movement is middle-class— is water off a and live alone or with other women. For many such duck’s back. The Women’s Liberation Movement options do not exist and the sordid, blackmailing MALE has no equivalent to the ‘sympathetic intellectuals’ power over women finds circumstances where it can that exist on the left. The Marxist intellectual accepts operate more or less successfully. it because he has to in order to justify his own position However, this alone does not prove that the theory in the leninist concepts of ‘leadership and authority’ itself is invalid. The real problem with this approach is and as a result, is constantly confused and frustrated that ‘recognition’ by individual men in individual by the masses unwillingness to follow cheerfully. living situations, does not confront the issue that society The WLM is faced by no such paradox because the must change before women can become equal; e.g. jobs theory of WLM does not allow this sympathetic are usually implicitly male because it is assumed that approach to the changeover of political power. None free servicing and childcare are available at home. Such of this is meant to imply that the theory of the WLM recognition by individual men may make life more has a ready made strategy for political change, but tolerable for the individual feminist, but that is no rather that we don’t start defeated by the flaws of different to the limitations of individual women in the our own theory. twenties and thirties who understood the problems If therefore, there is no equivalent in feminist but had no collective analysis. So we must make theory to the ‘fellow traveller’ or to the ‘armchair another attempt to analyse ‘how men change’. Marxist’, it follows that there is no room in the theory or practice for a male/female alliance. The problem with this conclusion is however, that it leaves no room for men at all. It is much too easy to conclude from How men change—Theory II this that the radical feminists were right. Men will only change when they have to negotiate with women is based on the shared experience that on equal terms. This will only come about if women women have of male oppression. This does not mean withdraw from contact with men and withdraw from that all wmeno experience oppression in the same way. men the protection that Phyllis Chester lists as ‘to The rewards for being ‘femme’ in this society are such keep male secrets, cherish male fraility, mask male that many women choose this role. The problem of cruelty ... to assuage mate insecurity and loneliness how to politicise all women remains a central political etc’. issue for the women’s liberation movement, but the

Faced with the prospect of living with themselves, emergence of the womens liberation movement as a e.i. with other men, they will come to the bargaining political movement is precisely so because of a manifest table with speed and on women’s terms. Apart from experience which can be communicated. Men do not assuming that women are in a position to withdraw, experience or share this oppression. At best they can there is a much more fundamental problem with this sympathise and try to understand. They can comprehend radical feminist view of how men will be made to the experience on which feminist theory is constructed change. The theory might be read as a form of - they can readily understand the theory— biological determinism, and as such it does not leave but they cannot share the experience. any scope for political change. Does the exclusion from the experience exclude The superiority of feminism is the superiority of them from the politics? The answer to this is not an ideology and practice, it is not and never can be a simple because the women's liberation movement has biological superiority. The starting point for this no equivalent to the Left’s ‘armchair Marxists’ or discussion was, however, that the failure of men to ‘sympathetic intellectuals’. Much of feminist theory change is and does affect the possibility of women rejects this concept of ‘sympathetic intellectual’ as changing. 11

“You and I can live equally but so what? I cannot Back to Base breathe out there. Till you and your kind start to begin some collective response to change that world out there”. We give notice that the defense So we are back to the base again—“How do men that ‘personal is political’ is no longer a sufficient change politically?” One of the reasons that it is such defence. There is a power structure in society which a difficult question for socialist feminists, is the way we is material, concrete and visible and it oppresses us have been forced into the trap of defending men partly as women. It has meant that we had to develop a because of the radical feminist/socialist feminist split, collective response. Masculinity can only be attacked but more importantly because of the way in which in the same way. How it is done is not an issue for the theory of the ‘personal is political’ has worked in the WLM but an issue for men. However the WLM is practice. giving notice that it is no longer sufficient politically At its simplest level socialist feminist living with to be a ‘liberated’ male towards women. What we are men have had to put their own relationships under the looking for now is how male/men relate to other men microscope of . As a defence of and to the patriarchal structure in which we both live. your own feminism the men/man you live with must be ‘special’ or different. This has allowed many men to say that while men obviously do oppress women Eva Eberhardt they ‘of course', do not, because they live with a Kerry Hamilton feminist. For extra measure you then get a catalogue Sheila McKechnie of what they do for women. It is this particular variety of left-wing male that is often the most insidious. The one who acquires the tools of feminist analysis to do the ‘I am more feminist than thou number'. There are however, a number of men who would FOOTNOTES recognise the pattern of behaviour described in the 1. Phyllis Chesler: About Men, The Women's Press last and who would be horrified by it. For these men 1978 the ‘personal is political’ has been a really important 2. Marge Piercy: Woman on the Edge of Time, The and essential feature of their political development and Women's Press 1979 of their understanding of the world. These men easily 3. Mick Costello: ‘The Working Class and the Broad understand why women attack men simply because they are men and, therefore part of a group which Democratic Alliance’ Marxism Today, June 1979 oppresses. Many of these men have withdrawn from 4. 'Work to Rule’ Red Rag No. 14. active and particularly party politics. They have done 5. Sheila Rowbotham: ‘The trouble with ‘patriarchy’ so because they cannot cope with the contradictions ‘New Statesman 21/28 Dec. 1979 they have experienced between male socialist politics 6. Ibid. and the lessons of the ‘personal is political'. They confront 7. Sally Alexander and Barbara Taylor:“In defence patriarchy but only as individuals. They fight of ‘patriarchy’,” New Statesman 1 Feb 1980. masculinity in the workplace from the level of making 8. Mark Cousins: ‘Material Arguments and Feminism, the tea to the incorporation of feminist principles in m/f No. 2 1978. work decisions. They may be few on the ground and 9. Ibid. sometimes many feminists doubt they really exist at all. But they operate individually and have no collective identity. They are often, in accepting feminist ideas, repulsed and rejected by other men, and this is one of the central dilemmas. The personal is political in respect of many such men has become only the personal is political, i.e. they too have been marginalised by other men because of their beliefs in the theories of feminism. However any socialist feminist has a commitment to political change that encompasses a collective response. If thus a sympathetic male cannot ‘join’ the WLM what collective male response to patriarchy and to fighting masculinity is available? Men seem to be unable to share other men's pain and suffering especially when that pain stems simply from operating as a typical male. They regret such an identity often by expressing a deep revulsion for other men. It is too easy to say that patriarchy oppresses men. It does not at least in the way it oppresses women. When men describe their experience of that oppression, it always seems cerebral, disembodied and ultimately self destroying rather than system destroying. It is to these men that many socialist feminists have ‘given shelter'. Yet in so doing they have possibly initiated a different brand of male response to feminist politics. It is to these men that the WLM must make collective and not individual demands.