Earlier this year America faced the tedious prospect of a new
decade without a new oppressed group to liberate. But in one swell
fell swoop our Yankee ingenuity conjured into existence a gaggle of
downtrodden persons to uplift. We discovered that women need
liberating and this discovery has liberated us from creeping
ennui.
This oppressed majority will gain Uhuru come Hell or low
hemlines. Just ask Barney Rosset, pornographer. Rosset runs Grove
Press, an establishment guided by his philosophy: “What’s wrong
with exciting people? Our whole society — television, movies,
fashion is built on exciting people.” The Women’s Liberation Front
recently added a new dimension to the exciting business of
pandering to prurient interests.
The WLF sat in at Grove Press to protest commercial “sexism.”
The men at Grove Press are fierce opponents of repression, but they
take a businesslike approach to mixing business and pleasure. They
had the WFL protestors arrested. This was good for the Grove Press’
property rights but bad for its revolutionary reputation. The WLF
promptly announced that Grove Press has “the same mentality as
Judge Hoffman” and demanded an end to “one dirty-old-man-rule” at
the Press. This reference to Rosset was less than fair. He is only
forty-seven.
Most men know that struggling women need dramatic tactics, like
bra burning, for it manifests the liberated woman’s escape from the
roles and stereotypes of a male-dominated society. Hence most men
would suffer death, or at least a mild blister, in defense of every
American’s right — regardless of race, color, creed, national
origin or sex — to burn bras.
Yet regrettably this form of bodily witness, so helpful in
eliminating false consciousness, causes air pollution. Recent
studies reveal that if every woman in America were to burn three
slightly padded bras there would develop an enormous increase in
air pollution and an enormous glut in Manhattan’s garment
district.
This is acceptable. As Lenin said, you shouldn’t break eggs
without making ‘an omelette. Besides, the First Amendment is
precise and unambiguous: congress shall make no law abridging the
right of even the most flamingly symbolic speech. If men have the
right to burn draft cards, then the principle of sexual reciprocity
stipulates that women have the right to burn bras.
Some male Neanderthals thought female suffrage would suffice to
end female servitude. This was rank sociological naivete. Advanced
thinkers understand that we must use compensatory programs to
correct the terrible legacy of centuries of unbridled male
tyranny.
We need an ambitious program to salvage those young women who
suffer the cultural deprivation of attending predominantly female
colleges. Such a program could be called Upward Curtsey, and could
use Federal funds to send (say) Bryn Mawr graduates to Atlanta,
Georgia, for a two year hitch in the robust and rehabilitating
atmosphere of Georgia Tech. Upward Curtsey would affirm the basic
principles of the American Dream by guaranteeing any American girl
the chance to grow up to be a Rambling Wreck from Georgia Tech.
It would be even better to directly attack what the “Mrs. Kerner
Commission” calls “institutional male chauvinism.” Let us begin by
distinguishing between De Jure and De Facto
discrimination.
De Jure discrimination is that which is established by
law, or by the deliberate acts of public officials; such is the ban
which bars women from the New York Mets’ locker room. De
facto discrimination results from community customs or mores,
such as the practice of giving a lady your seat on the subway. The
Constitution is not only color blind but sex blind, and it is
immoral to tolerate laws or customs that take notice of another
human being’s sex.
Fortunately women have not fallen victim to the wretched
condition denoted by the wretched noun “ghettoization.” As a result
of dumb luck (that is, without HEW guidelines), women are spread
evenly across the nation. Balanced residential patterns reduce the
need for forced busing to achieve sexual balance in schools.
Nevertheless, some busing is needed to eliminate pockets of
impacted sexual imbalance.
For example, there was a time when Smith College, Northampton,
Massachusetts, actually boasted about being the nation’s largest
all-female college. Although this “peculiar institution” is
becoming co-educational, the pace of Smith’s progress is
unacceptable. Under the guise of “deliberate speed,” Smith is
substituting tokenism for meaningful change.
The government must mount a determined attack on all such
“private” institutions. Their so-called “privateness” is an
illusion, which must not insulate them from public control. After
all, every autumn the students get to these colleges by driving
over public highways. Therefore the students are engaging in
interstate commerce and the colleges are permeated with public
aspects.
Such colleges must be compelled to conform with the law of the
land, which is that every school must have a sexual composition
identical with that of the surrounding community. The Justice
Department should seek a court order requiring Smith to bus males
from (say) Amherst until the Smith student body has the same sexual
composition as the town of Northampton. Forced busing is awkward,
but no one can take seriously the disingenuous argument that Smith
women and Amherst men will get together without Federal
compulsion.
Advanced sociological thinking supports the justice of such
busing. Federal officials will soon release the “Mrs. Coleman
Report.” This is the fruit of a multi-million dollar research
project, which proved what it set out to prove, namely, that when
young men and women study together they learn some things they
might not otherwise learn in school. Therefore, it is monumental
hypocrisy to attack de jure sexism while leaving the
de facto form untouched. It is time to opt for minimum
standards saying “Never!” to deliberate speed, letting the chips
fall where they may, and pausing only to pluck the blossom equality
from the nasty nettle sexism.
Now after forced busing achieves integration at all schools, we
must recognize the justice of women’s demands for creative sexual
separatism. We must acknowledge the independent dignity of “‘female
culture” by establishing “female studies programs” that will
cleanse the sex-bias from our hairychested university
curricula.
The “historical sexism” that lavishes attention on Napoleon
while downgrading the contributions of Catherine d’Medici and
Katherine von Bora must end. We must demand that the time devoted
to Catherine the Great be proportionate to the real uniqueness of
her behavior. Fairness demands that if Faulkner is studied, there
must be equal time for Eudora Welty. The principle of literary sex
parity requires trade-offs between Sinclair Lewis and Ayn Rand, or
Norman Mailer and Taylor Caldwell. And breathes there a woman with
a soul so dead, who never to herself has said, “One Hemingway
deserves a Willa Cather?”
Some persons worry that women’s liberation will distract us from
the all-important task of fending off environmental apocalypse. But
that worry betrays an insufficiently systemic view, for the new
science of “issue ecology” teaches that every issue is related to
every other issue in this troubled biosphere.
Dr. Mary Calerone, director of the Sex information and Education
council of the United States, recently demonstrated awareness of
this when she told the Women’s National Democratic Club that, “The
primary ecological system that all other systems need to serve is
the relationship between a man and a women. It, too, is subject to
pollution.” Clearly there are more forms of pollution under the sun
than appear in the Sierra Club’s philosophy.
Dr. Calderone understands the charm of “environment” as a
political issue. One cannot turn around (or roll over in bed)
without rubbing up against environment. This is deliciously
egalitarian. Anyone with a grievance is relevant now that
“environmental concern” is the measure of relevance.
Fastidious people may claim that Dr. Calderone is contributing
to semantic pollution in order to make her cause congruent with
this month’s priorities. But it is tolerant to believe that
pollution is in the eye of the beholder. Anything that bothers you
is a pollutant of your environment.
Of course, when we sweep every one of the world’s disagreeable
features into the “environment crisis” we turn the term
“environment” into a classification that doesn’t classify. But
while the term loses precision, it gains an ability to make one
feel au courant, which is how I feel when I can classify bad books,
shoddy arguments and Senator Fulbright as “pollutants” and
ecological disasters. Women liberators must feel relevant twice
over — as freedom fighters and environment cleaners.
Female assertiveness is going to have some dramatic effects on
American life. If women shun jobs to which they were once
relegated, who will be airline stewardesses? The day may come when
the traveler slumps wearily into his seat, only to hear a rich
baritone voice asking “Coffee, tea or milk?” Thus the women’s
liberation movement may rescue the railroad passenger business.
Women may break the sex barriers in many occupations. Someday a
woman may play tight end for the Baltimore Colts. Then imagine the
spectator interest that would arise over a 15-yard penalty for
illegal use of the hands and arms?
Finally there is the stigma of servitude attached to the
exclusive use of women in the Playboy centerfold. Equity demands a
color centerfold of Joe Namath, stapled in the navel. This will
give men a sample of the shame and horror women feel when they are
cast in the role of pliable sex objects.
There is one basic reason why women are victims of capitalism,
male chauvinism, institutional sexism, imperialism,
objectification, Hugh Hefner, psychological deformation, moral
mutilation and physical exploitation. The reason? Women have nice
bodies, and fortunately, government cannot do much about that.
We are much in need of a conspicuous problem, which clearly
cannot be solved by government. Some Americans do not believe such
a problem exists. But the soft, warm, intractable fact about
women’s problems may teach these Americans an invaluable lesson
about the very finite capabilities of government.
Women’s liberation will not be a gift of government. Women must
save themselves. Most important, they must not be betrayed into
servility by “Aunt Toms,” those collaborationists who trade their
birthrights for a mess of service. No woman will be free until all
women are willing to step on cockroaches. This is a stern test, but
as the philosopher said, if women can’t stand the heat they should
stay in the kitchen.
George F. Will graduated from Trinity College in 1962,
received a degree from Oxford University, Magdalen College in 1964
and earned his Ph. D. from Princeton in 1968. Mr. Will is
twenty-nine and instructs physical education in Washington,
D.C.
