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 ideals and sets women against men in all spheres of life. In case after case, Sommers shows how these extremists 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' self-esteem 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 educational, 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. Presents well-reasoned arguments against many feminists' reliance on misleading, politically-motivated "facts" about how women are victimized. The book has become the centre of debate about who really speaks for equality and for most American women.

1. FEMINISM HOW
WOMEN HAVE
BETRAYED
WOMEN
CHRISTINA HOFF SUMMERS

2. U.S. $23.00
C a n . $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-fund­
ed research, presenting inflamma­
tory and often inaccurate
information and stifling any sem­
blance 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' self-
esteem 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.

3. CHRISTINA HOFF SOMMERS is an associ­
ate professor of philosophy at Clark
University who specializes in contem­
porary 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

4. 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 politi­
cal 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 femi­
nism will again pick up the reins. But that is not likely to
happen without a fight.

7. Who
Stole
Feminism?
How
Women
Have
Betrayed
Women
Christina Hoff Sommer s
Simon & Schuster
New York London Toronto
Sydney Tokyo Singapore

8. 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.

9. 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.

10. 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-three-
year-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.

11. Contents
Preface 11
1. Women Under Siege 19
2. Indignation, Resentment, and Collective Guilt 41
3. Transforming the Academy 50
4. New Epistemologies 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 157
9. Noble Lies 188
10. Rape Research 209
11. The Backlash Myth 227
12. The Gender Wardens 255
Notes 276
Index 307

13. Preface
In Revolution from Within, Gloria Steinem informs h e r readers that "in
1
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
2
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
3
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

14. 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
5
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
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
7
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
8
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
9
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
10
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 Stud-

15. 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]
11
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.
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-

16. 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
12
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 ­
13
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
14
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 —

17. PREFACE 15
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 obfusca-
tion, 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
1 5
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
16
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.

18. 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
17
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.
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

19. 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

20. 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
18
consider themselves feminists. A n o t h e r poll c o n d u c t e d by R. H. Brush-
k 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
19
sidered themselves to b e feminists.
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.

21. 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.
1
— W I N I F R E D HOLTBY, 1926
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
2
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.

22. 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
3
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
4
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
5
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
6
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
7
that t r a d i t i o n . "
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-

23. 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
8
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

24. 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
9
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
10
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 eighteenth-
century 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 influ-

25. 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 self-
fulfillment 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 so-
called 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
11
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

26. 24 W H O STOLE FEMINISM?
have s h o w n that the old ideals of freedom, equality a n d democracy are
12
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
13
of equality a n d fraternity" n o longer p r e v a i l s :
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 mascu-
14
linist culture that exalts violence a n d individualism.
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
15
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
16
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

27. 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
17
in t e r r o r .
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-

28. 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
18
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
19
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
20
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 Ra-
buzzi of Syracuse University o p e n s her b o o k Motherself b y recounting this
incident:
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-

29. WOMEN UNDER SIEGE 27
nal context. In the m a n ' s speaking I beheld myself anew. " 1 " disap­
21
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 .
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
22
tion.
Marilyn French, the a u t h o r of The War Against Women, finds herself
vulnerable in m u s e u m s :
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
23
aggerated female b o d y parts, mainly b r e a s t s .
Janet Radcliffe Richards has p o i n t e d to s o m e significant similarities
24
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

30. 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
25
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
26
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
27
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.
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

31. 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
28
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 .
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
29
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

32. 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
30
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. Hypercon-
cern 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.
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

33. 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 .

34. 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-

35. WOMEN UNDER SIEGE 33
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 ,
3 1
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.
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-

36. 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
32
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
33
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:
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
34
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 .
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-

37. 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
35
administer c h a s t i s e m e n t .
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
36
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
37
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

38. 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
38
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 nonthreat-
ening. 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 impos-
ter." 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 assign-

39. 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 . "

40. 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 old-
school 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