The Nitty Gritty On
The Woman Question

(From the San Francisco Express Times, 8-28-68)

Lenny Heller's article on Anne Scheer in the August 14 issue of the Express Times is a prototype of the chauvinistic and condescending attitude male radicals have toward their female counterparts. The article purports to be an interview of Anne Scheer's experiences in the Democratic Republic of North Vietnam. But Heller was not interested in anything she had to SAY and apparently thought it inconceivable that she could say anything: "I can't seem to find a woman to suit me-so I went to look at somebody else's. And again.. "I went back to talk with her again ... to watch her more closely."
Heller and the other male ''radicals" find it impossible to see women as competent individuals. Rather they are sexual objects, entities that exist to please men, and decorative items to garnish in their mint-skirts. Indeed Heller feels emasculated at the thought that women have much to say and contribute to the left. He finds women tough when they refuse to come on with sexual games. It Is a sad commentary on men who call themselves radicals to feel threatened by women who assert their creative powers as individuals.
The male chauvinism In the movement goes much further than Lenny Heller's article. It is evident In a newspaper which would print such an interview. Chauvinism toward women is so commonplace that Marvin Garson, "didn't see how hurtful (the article) would be." Garson continues, "I have discovered, in the last few days, that my own casual callousness was no personal eccentricity; almost without exception, every woman I've talked to has found the interview objectionable while every man has wondered what the fuss was about.,, (EXPRESS TIMES, August 21).
Indeed viewing women as sexual appendages of the left is much like racism-it Is an unconscious attitude which those having It find nearly impossible to recognize. Yet male chauvinism is an element on the left, reflected in the structure of radical organizations from the EXPRESS TIMES to the and-draft groups. Movement women are predominately relegated to movement shitwork; movement men make the decisions. Women are rarely listened to in meetings. Even if they manage to make themselves heard above what are often ego-involved powers struggles of male radicals, their -words go unheeded as the audience takes in their appearances. It is no wonder that many radical women find it impossible to function within existing male-dominated attitudes about women permeate the left and be almost imperceptible to it Is that the movement has failed to create and even more to accept a radical analysis of the problems of woman. It is for this purpose-among others that radical women all over the country are forming groups for the discussion and implementation of womens liberation. Our discussions have led us to the beginnings of both theory and perspectives for action. Clearly the attitudes toward women on the left are the same (though sometimes expressed in more subtle forms) as those In the society as a whole. It is Important to understand that the social ethos creating role-definitions for both men and women Is crucial to the maintenance of the authoritarian, repressive society under which capitalism functions.

Men in this society are taught that In order to be masculine they must actively create; and dominate sexually, physically, and morally. Women are taught to be subservient and easily manipulated. Though child-rearing and housekeeping takes up less and less of their time women are told with Increasing vigor that their only creative roles are as wife and mother. This forces women to see their children as extensions of themselves because they are the only concrete products of their working lives. Hence dependent, guilty and confused children. It is in the face of the importance of domination to the male self-concept that men feel threatened by women who attempt to break out of their socially defined roles. Women, denied the possibility of direct self-expression, must often rely on coquettishness and manipulation to overcome subservience. The results of these social roles are numerous, one of them being that sex becomes an act ox mutual exploitation rather than an affirmation of one's humanity.
These same repressive roles which create sexual exploitation and male chauvinism on the left have important functions in Western capitalism. One of the products of the social ethos of roles is the housewife: a bored, uncreative and frustrated woman. Women control 75% of the purchasing power of consumer goods in America. It did not take industries and advertisers long to figure out that women will buy more when they are told that happiness is in having and not in being. The housewife is assured that she will become fulfilled by having a refrigerator to match her kitchen floor. Women's role as sexual object is exploited by the market of women's products: cosmetics and fashionable clothing. Indeed, it is highly profitable to maintain woman's role as object rather than subject and the social attitudes that go along with it.
The institutionalized forms of discrimination against women are supported by repressive role-definitions. In production women earn lower wages and more importantly find many professions virtually closed to them. The types of jobs open to women are extensions of their role as mother and helper. Thus women are predominately nurses, teachers and secretaries. The oppression of women is integral to every aspect of Western Institutions. It can be seen in woman's role in the family, her legal position (especially as related to abortion laws) and her opportunities for higher education.
Our goal is to end not only the institutional oppression of women but also to destroy the repressive social ethos creating the basis for its continuation. Clearly neither men nor women will be psychologically free and unalienated without basic changes In the structure of society. However it is crucial that the movement give a radical analysis of every aspect of our exploitative society. It is inconceivable that this analysts could stop short of recognizing the systematic oppression of women. The radical movement must begin the task of creating relationships based on mutual respect. Marvin Garson says that he may be a male chauvinist but that's all right because most other males on the left are also. We can only say that he and others should think twice about calling themselves radical.