Atlantis Vol. 9 No. 1 Fall/Automne 1983 118-126

The Androgyny Debate

Thelma McCormack York University

In The Left Hand of Darkness Ursula K. Psychological androgyny is another matter, LeGuin described a species in which the same an idea that is at once more intuitively credible. persons functioned as both male and .1 Many persons who are uncomfortable with con• Most of the time they were neither, but for a brief ventional definitions of and femi• period in a regular twenty-eight day cycle, ninity feel that a description of themselves which LeGuin's "sci-fi" Gethenians became, through incorporates both is closer to the emotional pat• casual sexual foreplay and chance, one or the terns and cognitive styles of both . The term other, carrying out their love-making in hetero• "androgyny" is anything but clear. It can mean sexual pairs or groups. After two or three days of that masculine and feminine characteristics serve intense concentrated erotic activity, they returned as a dual resource to be drawn on according to to an asexual state—inactive, unconcerned and whichever one is appropriate to a particular undifferentiated. No one was pre-programmed, situation, or, it can mean that the two sets of destined by nature to become male or female in characteristics modify each other in all situa• that all adult Gethenians had been both. The tions. Sandra L. Bern who has done pioneering children produced by their unions reckoned des• work in the field uses it both ways: cent through mothers who had been, and would be, fathers of other children. [It] is possible, in principle, for an individ• ual to be both masculine and feminine, This ambisexuality, LeGuin says, "has little both instrumental and expressive, both or no adaptive value," but, it has important agentic and communal, depending upon social implications: no restrictions on the type of the situational appropriateness of these work people do, no rape, no sexual hierarchy, no various modalities; and even for an indi• sex-role stereotypes. Indirectly, LeGuin specu• vidual to blend these complementary modal• lates, it could be related in I he absence of wars, ities in a single act....2 and, more generally, of all forms of aggression. Androgyny can also mean that the duality is LeGuin's vision of sexual equality and its integrated and synthesized to form a new and consequences for a peaceful world and harmon• different repertoire of behavioral predispositions. ious social organization have given the book a Most people who write about androgyny assume cherished place in feminist literature. But since it is a single type with variations branching out. genital endowment is normally fixed for life and However, in practice and in various studies, we sexual activity is non-cyclical, and since we can• often find two types: androgynous men and not provide both sperm and ova, the concept of androgynous women for whom the mix is not biological androgyny belongs to the domain of the same. ancient myth and contemporary science fiction. Despite the differences and inconsistencies of Does equality require or presuppose a certain use, all scholars agree that androgyny does not type (or range) of personality? alter in any fundamental sense established socie• tal norms. It is, as we shall see later, a fairly What is interesting about the debate is that it is conservative goal. Heterosexual coupling re• not between feminists and anti-feminists, but mains the dominant form of marriage. No among feminists, an in-house controversy car• is called upon to repudiate child-bearing ried on within a common ideological frame• functions; socialization veers only marginally work. Yet, the issues are divisive and capable of from the familiar and familial paths. Androgyny generating both heat and light. Some criticize challenges the more traditional models of social the concept of androgyny because it does not go life in both private and public places. Yet, it does far enough; others think it goes too far. Some not redraw or change the private/public bound• regard it as a long overdue adaptation to modern aries, nor does it communalize or expropriate the social organization, but still within a patriarchal private household. Other ideas have been more social order flexible enough to accommodate the threatening to our institutions, and more cap• new psychological pattern; others regard it as a able of evoking primal fears. Why, then, should radical salvation tranforming patriarchal insti• this compromise, this modest idea be a matter of tutions and humanizing the impersonal forms such contention? of bureaucratic organization. To some feminists, it is a step forward in the development of non- Is it, as one psychiatrist suggests, a deep sexist thought; others, a step backward, and still unconscious envy of the "Other," a universal others see it as neither, a lateral move. To some, and, incidentally, infantile wish to deny our real it is a short transitional stage, limited in dura• differences and to avoid the pain of a more tion, while for others, it is the final stage in the mature recognition of the ineluctable biological long social evolution of male-female conscious• fact?3 Or, is it nothing more momentous than an ness. honest difference among scholars about the heur• istic advantages of a concept? Between these The clarification and resolution of these and extremes of subjectivity and objectivity is a polit• related issues is made more interesting but more ical scenario which holds that the oppression of difficult to disentangle by the fact that the women is, in part, sustained by an ideal of androgyny debate cuts across both the humani• feminity which disadvantages women for almost ties and the social sciences, each with their dif• all positions in public life. At the same time, the ferent sensibilities, vocabularies and measures of ideal legitimizes male dominance in the most validity. The tensions between positivist science important areas of decision-making. Thus, the and the normative disciplines, between quantit• subordinate status of women is a combination of ative measurement and qualitative insight, be• role content and "learned helplessness"—in tween an immediate and an historical orienta• short, dependency. Liberation, then, demands as tion are enacted in the debate. As usual in such a minimum a broader definition of what is situations, the ecumenical spirit survives after appropriate behaviour for women, with the the faithful have returned to their parochial burden of proof being placed on those who hold exclusivity. Psychologists tend to know only that biological differences, not social discrimi• what their colleagues write. Within that forum nation, account for the non-random character of they generate more refined aspects of the original participation in all areas of social life. Finally, problem, while philosophers and literary critics there is a question feminists raise but which is, as withdraw to follow their own discourses based we shall see, not often dealt with in the literature: on their own agendas. Our purpose here, then, is not to review the capitalism. But that era has passed. Despite its literature in each of these intellectual disciplines lingering traces, there is relatively little stigma nor to assess the state of the art, but rather to attached to behaviour that merely mimics tradi• provide a more comprehensive view of the range tional masculinity and or, goes fur• of issues and the shape of the argument. For that ther, and departs from it significantly. Modern reason, the material has been arranged themati- capitalism, based on monopolistic markets, bur• cally rather than by special disciplines. First, we eaucratic organization, and the production of will consider the concept itself and its place in services, has led to family constellations as well our knowledge. Then, we will examine the con• as to new patterns of child-rearing and educa• troversy about personality or social roles, which tion. All of these together and in combination is followed by discussions of androgyny and with other factors have made the older constructs mental health, androgynous persons or androgy• of masculine and feminine obsolete, and, with relationships, androgyny and feminist few exceptions, dysfunctional for institutional ideology, moral and historical issues. In the con• participation beyond ritualistic conformity. cluding section, we will discuss the larger issue of androgyny and/or equality. There does appear to be some evidence that a change has taken place within the past two 1. How useful is the concept of androgyny in decades, with the rate of change being greater for advancing knowledge? Eichler is not a strong men than women.6 Caution should be exercised advocate of androgyny, but does acknowledge in interpreting these results since we still do not that it is a "necessary step in the evolution of have long-term studies nor large sample popula• non-sexist thought."4 Others who are more sup• tion surveys. If it is true that a change has been portive hold that androgyny is simply a better occuring, and that it has been occurring at a way of describing a reality which presently differential rate favouring men, it confirms indir• exists, that the evolution in behavior has already ectly that persons located in roles where the taken place, and that it remains only for our organizational changes are most rapid—indus• ideas to catch up.5 This reasoning is sufficient trial structures—are adapting to a social reality. justification to incorporate androgyny into our However, what is more significant is that these paradigms of psychology and sociology. differential rates suggest that a new form of inequality may be emerging, inequality between The assumption here is that there is an ideal the more and the less androgynous, between the personality type (or a limited number of person• fast-track leaders and the slow-track followers. ality types) that is (are) congruent with a given social structure. Deviations from the norm pro• In examining children and their patterns of duce strain for the individual and can contribute socialization, the androgynous child of either to the malfunctioning of institutions. At the sex is viewed with suspicion by others, such as, same time, changes are taking place in the peers and teachers.7 Indeed, the adults expect the macrostructures which, in turn, are conducive to "" or "sissy" to outgrow the unusual the formation of other personality configura• cross-sex behaviour. (Paradoxically, androgy• tions. nous adults are better liked by their peers than non-androgynous persons.)8 Applying this general proposition to our own society, it is asserted that the traditional defini• Critics of the concept of androgyny are often tions of masculinity and femininity were appro• more critical of sex-role research than andro• priate to a bourgeoisie and to an upwardly gyny. This is to some extent true of Eichler, and mobile middle class family in the era of industrial even more so of Morgan.9 Morgan argues that the concept of androgyny is a bundle of logical ion" (female) which they and he regard as uni• contradictions and faulty reasoning. One exam• versal. However, the Bakan distinction, like ple of the latter is the way pro-androgynists leave Erikson's "inner" and "outer" and Parsons's unexamined such problems as whether the pro• "instrumental" (male) and "expressive" (female), file of androgyny is universal or culturally spe• is by no means culture-free. cific. On the basis of her analysis, Morgan con• cludes that androgyny is neither possible nor 2. A second issue concerns the theory of per• desirable. But her criticisms would apply equally sonality, or, to be more precise, the relationship well to the concept of sex-roles if, say, we were all between and social roles. Pro- born into an androgynous society in which some androgyny psychologists argue that personality academic said, "Let's consider the concept of and the ability to perform various social roles at sex-roles." Like androgyny, the concept of sex- home, at work, in school or in the community roles would be neither sound logically nor desir• are neutral, independent of . Although able socially, yet, sex-roles exist and are not just a gender is essential for procreational activity, for linguistic phenomena. reproduction, most of the years in our life cycle are spent in other activities where the competen• Psychologists have also criticized the concept ces required have no clear basis in physiological of androgyny on the grounds that it perpetuates differences. If gender-typing persists, it reflects sex-role stereotypes.10 Sex-role research does have rigidity or a cultural lag. a place in psychology, they maintain, but sex- role stereotypes do not. The dissatisfaction here Implicit in this is the assumption that human refers to the methodology of the androgyny stu• adaptation and survival are dependent on a dies where, in order to draw up the profiles of learning process rather than biological destiny. "masculine" and "feminine," the researchers ask The learning process itself is a measure of their subjects to describe the types. Inevitably, humanness; to the extent that it occurs and we then, the measuring instrument reflects attitudes are not guided or controlled by innate instinct, which are, at best, coloured by self-interest and the outcomes are indeterminate. Thus, sex-roles the biases of the culture. In Spence and Helm- vary widely within a given social system and reich's work, for example, high school students even more so when they are examined histori• were asked to define these polarities.11 (This was cally or cross-culturally. an effort to get away from the class bias of using college students as subjects.) However, late ado• Anti-androgyny psychologists argue that ana• lescence may well be a unique point in develop• tomical and hormonal differences are too impor• ment, a period when sex-role differentiation is tant in psychological development to be disre• highly salient, most simplistic in definition, and garded or undervalued. "Androgynists...have overwhelmingly present in consciousness.12 apparently dismissed the physical body alto• gether."13 Freud's particular theory of psycho- In short, the critics claim, the concept of sexual development may be flawed but he was androgyny is a reorganization of sex-role stereo• correct in recognizing the existence of infantile type research, not a basic change in our think• sexuality as well as the awareness of male-female ing. It appears to be fresh, but it remains within differences throughout childhood and the way the framework of existing definitions of mascu• these differences lead in diverse directions line and feminine. In order to control for this through puberty to sexual maturity. Allowing problem, Spence and Helmreich, for example, for minor variations, the psychological differen• introduce into their scale David Bakan's distinc• ces between the sexes are so regular and consist- tion between "agentic" (male) and "commun• ently patterned that we cannot account for them for participation in public life. Why should exclusively in terms of socialization. women give up their sexual identity? Carried to its logical conclusion, she says, androgyny would Erik Erikson's studies of children's play are mean , an unnecessary and exorbitant often cited as confirming his distinction between price for social justice. All that women want or "outer" (male) and "inner" (female) spatial con• need is freedom from ignorance about their ceptions that seem to be characteristic of men bodies, liberation from the in contem• and women. But Paula Caplan, who reviewed porary medical knowledge and biology; a better studies of children's play and Erikson's work in sense of womanhood rather than no sense of it. particular, found his investigations had not con• trolled for social learning or socialization, and Bardwick begs the question of what "• that his statistics did not warrant the conclusions hood" and "womanhood" are, and whether they he drew.14 In her own work, when children were are ever strictly confined to the bedroom. In our presented only with blocks, girls were just as society, for example, when men lose their jobs, interested in constructing towers as boys; when they often feel they have lost their manhood they were presented only with miniature replicas which they may seek to recover vicariously of domestic artifacts, boys were no less inclined through fantasies of "macho" man. Unless one than girls to create enclosed spaces. knew the cultural code, it would be difficult to figure out these linkages. The point is that sexu• Nevertheless, the conceptual problems remain. ality can never be isolated from its multiple Can we understand personality and leave out social meanings. our sexual biographies? What does personality mean if we can compartmentalize behaviour to Going back to Bern and Bardwick, the differ• such a degree that women who are passive in the ence between them is the difference between a bedroom are assertive in the boardroom? Per• social psychological approach and a clinical sonality is by definition that part of our behav• one, between focusing on social roles and social iour which is not situationally specific. Rather, structure, on the one hand, and on problems of it is the stable core, the consistency of style in identity and sexual dysfunction on the other. It is behaviour that puts a special stamp, our own an impasse that is likely to persist. individual imprimatur on all of our activity. Theoretically, an observer could predict from 3. Clinical problems aside, is androgyny a observations of behaviour in one setting to superior form of personality organization? Freud behaviour in another. held the view that , as he called it, was our original state, but that in the course of nor• Sandra Bern says that of course it is important mal development we moved toward one polarity to be "able to look into the mirror and to be or the other.17 Failure to do so would result in perfectly comfortable with the body one sees abnormal behaviour. Using different criteria for there."15 Yet, what we do in our social roles and mental health, however, may lead to other pre• how well we perform them is not contingent dictions. If it is correct to say that androgyny is upon this body awareness. Judith Bardwick, on an adjustment to a transformed social structure, the other hand, insists that a strong sense of then androgyny should be a preferred mode for is essential for our emotional no other reason than the fact that it eliminates security.16 Without it women are confused about incongruence. Different criteria might be flexi• their bodies and the unique function of repro• bility, independence from group pressures and duction. She then notes that men are not asked to willingness to engage in cross sex-role behaviour surrender their sense of manhood as a condition without anxiety. Another criterion might be self- favourable or unfavourable attitudes toward esteem. feminism? One of the best designed studies intended to explore this constructed four scales The empirical evidence seems to support the of equality: equal opportunity, family equality, first two. This may explain why men who have the double standard in sexual morality, and the more access to the better paying, more highly acceptability of female initiative.22 The findings rewarded and more challenging jobs in the work confirmed that men who score low on andro• world have gone so quickly from traditional gyny scales are the most conservative. The results definitions of masculinity to androgyny, and also reflected the ideological uncertainties of why they have made male androgyny a more many women even when their androgyny scores acceptable image than female androgyny.18 With were high. However, activists can take heart; respect to the second criterion—versatility—, androgyny with all of its strains is a positive there is evidence from Bern's experiments that factor in social change. In addition, their belief men who scored high on the androgyny scale that there is such a creature as a "male chauvi• would cuddle babies or, at least, not avoid such nist" is correct; he is not every man, but he is also situations; similarly, women who were more not a phantom, not an angry or paranoid androgynous were more willing to engage in less projection.23 conformist behaviour.19 With respect to mea• sures of self-esteem there is less agreement.20 6. While psychologists have been exploring some of the empirical correlations between high 4. If, instead of looking at personality or roles, and low androgyny scores and a variety of we look at relationships, a different view is dependent variables, a different type of question obtained. Relationships are, after all, where we has been raised by philosophers. To say, for test equality. But very few studies examine rela• example, that androgynous personalities are tionships, and only one has used the term more adaptive and therefore superior in their "androgynous relationship."21 In this case the mental health or adjustment assumes something relationship was marriage. The evidence is that about ends. Adaptive to what? Joyce Trebilcot, a there are some new tensions created by the libera• philosopher, has argued that there are no moral tion of both persons and the assignment of jobs grounds for regarding androgyny as better than in the household which neither partner saw as any other configuration of traits.24 As we noted their domain. Whether this disharmony is per• earlier, she argues for a pluralistic model of manently detrimental or leads to growth, whether society, a society which does not intimidate or it undermines the marriage but contributes to disadvantage those who voluntarily choose or the emotional development of the individual feel more comfortable with traditional notions partners are questions that have not been pursued of masculine and femine. Androgyny is differ• in any depth. The importance of this approach, ent, an alternative mode, but not one to be pre• however, is that it moves toward studies of rela• ferred, rewarded or mandated. The desirability tionships; that is, studies of equality. Meanwhile of tolerance takes precedence over the desirabil• psychologists may wish to question whether it is ity of androgyny. the proper use of the term androgyny to describe an egalitarian marriage as androgynous. The argument for the moral superiority of androgyny rests to some degree on the idea that 5. Traditionally, role-strain and status incon• androgyny is our natural state, a healthy condi• sistencies have been the source of conservative tion that has been hidden or distorted by the political thinking. Does it apply here, too; do dominance in cultural life of an imposed male- persons who score high on androgyny have centered partiarchy, a system which created its own androcentric symbolic systems. Carolyn themselves must adopt. Jung's men would be• Heilbrun, professor of English literature, has come more humane, more loving and creative, drawn attention to a rich tradition of androgy• but would still remain rulers and leaders; women, nous images in art, religion and literature.25 whether true to their nature or not, would con• Androgynous gods have been worshipped in tinue to remain the ruled and the led. Eastern religions; androgynous heroes have been part of our mythology; many of the greatest wri• June Singer, a Jungian, regards this view as a ters, male and female, themselves androgynous, misreading of Jung.29 Acknowledging that Jung have created characters whose motivational com• shared the male chauvinism of his day, she plexity lies in the precarious balance between maintains that it is the spirit of his discussion two sides of their nature. Jung considered an• not the letter that counts. Androgyny is not drogyny to be an archetype of the unconscious "what" but "how," not substance but method, mind projected as a vision of what we have been not content but process. "The key to the new and what we might yet become: of human perfec• consciousness," she writes, "is the capacity to tion. Yet, it is the idealization that may make it feel oneself in the flow, in process, and to focus imperfect. "My fundamental objection to the on the dynamic interchange of energy that goes conceptof androgyny," Cynthia Secor writes, "is on continually in the open system to which we that it is rooted in a static image of perfection, in belong." Thus, the androgynous personality of eternity, an image which cannot take into account either sex is more fully realized and becomes the the rough going of historical process."26 driving force in a self-correcting cybernetic sys• tem; the male bias disappears since the duality Secor touches on the weakness of psychologi• within each of us is being reborn. cal research which lacks any comparative or his• torical scale. This is not necessarily an argument Not all social theorists accept Singer's cyber• against androgyny. Her further reservation about netic model of society. If gender had no history Jung's concept of androgyny is shared by Gelpi and no historical significance, we would not be and several others who find a male bias in it.27 presently trying to change the social structure. Literature, art, poetry and drama are replete with One of the dissenting voices on androgyny is men whose beauty or nobility of character is that of the late Herbert Marcuse.30 The organiz• enhanced by softness and sensitivity; in contrast, ing principle of past history, according to Mar• there is almost no comparable image of women cuse, has been the masculine principle of Per• driven by political ambition. Joan of Arc, Eliza• formance: exploitative, acquisitive and ego• beth the First, Queen Victoria, Golda Meir, centric. The hope of any future civilization is Margaret Thatcher, Indira Gandhi are seen Eros, the feminine principle. That being the more as deviants than models of human perfec• case, there is no reason to retain, even in partial tion. Indeed, in much of our the or muted form, the discredited masculine prin• female androgyne is pictured as a castrating ciple. Androgyny would only make women wife, a domineering mother, a jealous man- more like men in a world where any survival of hating colleague, grotesque women with ringside Performance is regressive. seats at the guillotine. Androgyny, according to D.A. Harris, is "the sexist myth in disguise."28 In Marcuse deduces the characteristics of women addition, Jung thought men would gain from from activities related to motherhood. He talks an infusion of the sensuous qualities of women, vaguely about receptivity, sensitiviy, non-vio• but women who took on some of the properties lence, tenderness, but, at the same time, he re• of men would lose those very qualities of wom• cognizes that these desirable nurturing charac• anliness which men, if they were to complete teristics of women are not innate; they are learned, the consequences of being the second sex. Still, hood by contributing to a social distance between he says, the "long process of thousands of years classes of women. of social conditioning means that they have become 'second nature.'" Feminist critics see the Thus, the androgyny debate continues unre• historical process differently, as having inflicted solved. It continues to haunt our imaginations appalling damage on the psyches of women. even after the various critics have scored their The legacy of being the second sex is masochism, points. On an analytical level, it remains impor• passivity, dependency, privatization—all of them tant for reasons indicated earlier: a social struc• negative in terms of human freedom. ture built on the principles of sexual equality requires a new personality type, a new motiva• For this reason, the eminent feminist (pro- tion where sex differences are inconspicuous to androgyny) theologian Mary Daly defines an• both the self and others; that is, where they can• drogyny as an end state of a redemptive struggle; not be manipulated to the advantage of one sex it is not what we are but what we become.31 or the other. If androgyny is not the motivational Original sin for women, she writes is complicity basis for this Good Society, what is? in sexism. If these habits and their charactero- logical consequences are raised to become the The concept of androgyny suffers from the dominant principle in social life, women will same weakness as the concept of moderniza• betray themselves once again. Feminism is noth• tion.33 (Indeed, androgyny is to psychology what ing without the radical impulse to change both modernization is to sociology.) They both imply personal histories and the social world. At the that patriarchy will disappear, wither away, but, level of personality, the change is more than a in fact, just the opposite occurs: patriarchy is change in degree and something less than a given a new lease on life; it becomes both mod• change in kind. The feminist struggle for struc• ernized and androgynized. Meanwhile, the deeper tural equality, according to Daly, is the praxis equality eludes us. Neither concept—androgyny through which women start to liberate them• or modernization—can or should be discarded. selves and, indirectly, to liberate men. Like Sin• They can only serve women when they have ger who also emphasizes androgyny as a process, been integrated into a larger theory and vision of Mary Daly tends to trail off into metaphysics. equality. In short, we have been putting the cart Ann Ferguson, a Marxist, maintains that andro• before the horse. gyny, although desirable in the abstract, is not

32 possible in class societies. To the limited extent NOTES that some version of it does occur, it is among the 1.Ursula K. LeGuin, The Left Hand of Darkness (New York: highly educated, well-to-do privileged classes. Ace, 1969). Any feminist revolution, then, must operate 2. Sandra L. Bern, "Probing the Promise of Androgyny" in Alex• simultaneously on the social system and on the andra G. Kaplan and Joan P. Bean, eds.. Beyond Sex-Role Stereotypes (Boston: Little, Brown, 1976). pp. 47-62. bases of personality, otherwise, one group of 3. Robert May, Sex and Fantasy (New York: WW. Norton, 1980). women would be liberating themselves at the 4. Margrit Eichler, The Double Standard (London: Croom expense of other women. Ferguson touches Helm, 1980). 5. Joyce Trebilcot, "Two Forms of Androgynism," in Mary another weakness in the debate—its sociology Vetterling-Braggin, Frederick A. Ellison and Jane English, or the lack of it. Patriarchy has meant the exploit• eds., Feminism and Philosophy (Totowa, New Jersey: Little- field, Adams 1974). p. 70-78. ation of women by men, but it has also meant the 6. Alfred B. Heilbrun, Jr. and Harvey L. Schwartz, "Sex-Gender exploitation of some women—domestic servants, Differences in Level of Androgyny," Journal of Sex Roles, Vol. prostitutes and cheap labour—by other women, 8, No. 2(1982), pp. 201-214. 7. Joan D. Hemmer and Douglas Kleiber, "Tomboys and Sissies: a phenomenon which operates against sister• Androgynous Children?" Journal of Sex Roles, Vol. 7, No. 12 (1981), pp. 1205-1212. 8 Heilbrun and Schwartz, op. cit. 9. Kathryn Pauly Morgan, "Androgyny: A Conceptual Cri• tique," unpublished manuscript. 10. Cannie Stark-Ademec, J. Martin Graham and Sandra W. Pyke,

"Androgyny and Mental Health: The Need for a Critical Eva• luation of the Theoretical Equation," International Journal of Women's Studies, Vol. 3, No. 5 (1980), pp. 490-507. 11. Janet T. Spence and Robert L. Helmreich, Masculinity and Femininity (Austin: University of Texas, 1978). 12 Thelma McCormack, review of Spence and Helmreich Mascul• inity and Femininity, Queen's Quarterly, No. 4. (Winter 1979/1980). 13. Stark-Ademec, et. al., op. cit. 14. Paula Caplan, "Erikson's Concept of Inner Space: A Data- Based Reevaluation," American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 49, No. 1, (1979), pp. 100-108. 15. Bern, op. cit. 16. Judith M. Bardwick, In Transition (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1979). 17. Sigmund Freud, "Hysterical Phantasies and their Relation to Bisexuality," in The Standard Edition of the Complete Works of Sigmund Freud, Vol. 9 (London: Hogarth Press). 18. Heilbrun and Schwartz, op. cit. 19. Bern, op. cit. 20. See Spence and Helmreich, Heilbrun and Schwartz, Bern, op. at. 21. Herta A. Gutman, M.C. "The New Androgyny Therapy of 'Liberated Couples'" Canadian Psychiatric Association Jour• nal Vol. 22, No. 5 (1977), pp. 225-229. 22. Terrance Q. Percival and Elizabeth F. Percival, "Sex Typed Identification, Male Dominance and Attitudes Toward Social Equality for Women," Atlantis, Vol. 7, No. 2 (1982), pp. 68-87. 23. Peter B. Zeldow, "Psychological Androgyny and Attitudes Toward Feminism," Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psy• chology, 44, No 1 (1976), p. 150. 24. Trebilcot, op. cit. 25. Carolyn G. Heilbrun, Toward a Recognition of Androgyny (New York: Knopf, 1973). 26. Cynthia Secor, "Androgyny: An Early Reappraisal." Women's Studies, Vol. 2 (1974), pp. 161-169. 27. Barbara Charlesworth Gelpi, "The Politics of Androgyny," Women's Studies, Vol. 2 (1974), pp. 151-160. 28. D.A. Harris, "Androgyny: The Sexist Myth in Disguise," Women's Studies, vol. 2 (1974), pp. 171-184. 29. June Singer, Androgyny (New York: Anchor, Doubleday. 1976). 30. Herbert Marcuse, Eros and Civilization (New York: Vintage, 1962). "Marxism and Feminism," Women's Studies, Vol. 2 (1974), pp. 279-288. 31. Mary Daly, Beyond God the Father (Boston: Beacon, 1973). 32. Ann Ferguson, "Androgyny as an Ideal for Human Develop• ment" in Mary Vetterling-Braggin, Frederick A. Ellison and Jane English, eds., Feminism and Philosophy (Totowa, New Jersey: Littlefield, Adams, 1977), pp. 45-69. 33. Thelma McCormack, "Development with Equity for Women": in Naomi Black and Ann Baker Cottrell, eds., Women and World Changest, (Beverly Hills: Sage 1981).