IDEOLOGIESOF TFIEMEN'S MOVEMENT

IDEOLOGIESOF TFIEMEN'S MOVEMENT

A Thesis

Presentedto

the Faculty of the GraduateSchool

University of Missouri - Columbia

In Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirementsfor the Degree

Master of Arts

by

LARRY S.WLLIAMS

Clarencel,o ThesisSupervisor

August,1989
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank Teri Ciacchi for encouraglngme to pursuethis project and for

providing valuable support-- material and emotional -- during my researchand writing. I

would also like to thank my thesisadvisor, ClarenceLo, for his valuable insights and his

encouragementthroughout. I am indebtedto the other membersof my committee,Jim

McCar"tneyand PatPeritore, who also took time out of busy schedulesto help me complete

this project. My thanksto the UMC PeaceStudieshogram and Robbie Lieberman for

their valuable contribution to my education. And frnally, to my fellow graduatestudents

in
the Departmentof Sociology, my warmestregardsand best wishes as I leave
vou.
 IDEOLOGIESOF TFM MEN'S MOVEMENT

Larry S. Williams

ClarenceL,o ThesisSupervisor

ABSTRACT

In this paper I shall arguethat a shift in stateideology hascontributedto greater

visibility for one ideological segmentof the men'smovementwhom I call the

"masculinists." The masculinistsjoin with restrictive liberals to arguethat feminism has

gone too far and that radical feminists, in particular,are demandingtoo much. I contrast

the masculinistmen with pro-feminist and traditionalistmen in their respectiveideologies,

their relarion to stateideology and patriarchy,and their ability to attainpublic visibility.

ul
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

ABSTRACT tll

LIST OF TABLES vll

I. INTRODUCTION

A. PROBLEM 2

B. REVIEW OF RELEVANT LITERATURE

C. IMPORTANTCONCEPTS 6
1. LiberalismandSocialOppression
2. Shift in PatriarchalRelations

II. CONTEXTOF THE MEN'SMOVEMENT l2

A. CONTEXTFORPRO-FEMINISTMEN t2
1. ExpansiveLiberalism
2. LiberalFeminismandWomen'sRights
3. RadicalFeminismandWomen'sLiberation
4. Conflictin FeministIdeology

B. SHIFT IN STATEIDEOLOGY 25

C. CONTEXTFORTRADITIONALISTMEN 26
1. Conservative
Responseto theLiberalCrisis
2. Anti-FeministWomen

tv
 D. CONTEXT FOR MASCULINIST MEN 29
1. RestrictiveLiberalism
a. Searchfor a New Center
b. The New Class
c. RestrictiveLiberal Women
2. The Liberal C-ountermovement
a. The Human PotentialMovement
b. Feminine Mystique
c. Masculine Mystique

trI. MEN'S MOYEMENT ORGANIZATIONS 45

A. PRO-FEMIMSTMEN'SMOVEMENT 47
1. Historyof Pro-Feminist
Men
2. NationalOrganization for ChangingMen
3. InternalConflict
4. Pro-MaleCulture
a. Spirituality
b. Homophobia
5. Limitationsof LiberalFeminism
a. ActivistMen'sCaucus
b. SexualPolitics
c. "Domestic"Violence
d. Child Custody
6. Conclusions

B. TRADMONALIST MEN'SMOVEMENT 63
1. Historyof DivorceReform
2. TraditionalistMen'sOrganizations
a. Men'sRightsAssociation
b. NationalOrganization
for Men
 3. Traditional Values
a. Divorce and the Welfare State
b. PaternalCustody
c. "Domestic" Violence
d. View of Male Traitors
e. Affirmative Action
4. Conclusions

C. MASCIJLINIST MEN'S MOVEMENT 74

1. History of Masculinist Men
2. Masculinist Men's Organizations
a. National Congressfor Men
b. The Coalition of Free Men
c. Men's Rights, [nc.
3. Father'sRights
a. Joint Custody
b. Alimony and Child Support
4. Free Men
a. "Domestic" Violence
b. SexualPolitics
c. Men's Rights
5. Conclusions

TV. CONCLUSIONS 92

BIBLIOCRAPHY 95

vl
 LIST OF TABLES

Tablel. Organizationsaccordingto ideologicalfaction. 46

Table2. Irvel of analysisandlevel of involvementin men'sissues. 47

Table3. Responseof men'smovementfactionsto stateideologyandpatriarchy. 47

Table4. Roughestimationof membershipin men'smovementfactions. 94

vu
 CHAPTERI

INTRODUCTION

In this paper I shall examine the U.S. men'smovement in a broad social and

historical context. I shall comparc and contrastthe ideologiesof traditionalist, masculinist,

and pro-feminist men'sorganizationsin terms of their relation to changesin patriarchy and

stateideology. I shall usethis approachto measurethe visibility of men'smovement

organizations.

The pro'feminist men'smovementhas its roots in a period of expansiveliberalism

when feminist women establishedsignificant political opportunities. Other segmentsof the

men'snrovementassociatewith ideological traditions that challengeboth expansive

liberalism and feminism. The traditionalistmen draw from conservativepolitical theory

and directly opposefeminist goals. The masculinistmen, like the restrictive liberals in state

policy, stressprinciples of individualism and freedom and suggestthat feminism and

expansiveliberalism have gone too far in seekingequality.

The pro-feminist men'smovementhasthus far beenunable to attain much

visibility. In part this can be attributedto divisions within the major national organization.

With both liberal pro-feminiss and radical (or socialist)pro-feministsin the leadershipof

the organization,a cohesiveagendahasnot yet emerged. This division is reminiscentof

the feminist women's movementwith its split betweentheoriesof the feminine mystique

and sexualpolitics.

The traditionalist men'smovementhasnot receivedmuch public attention. In paft,

this has beendue to a propensity of their organizationsto rely upon their founders,who

continue to be the central organizersand theoristsfor this strandof the movement.

Furthermore,like the New Right, the traditionalist men'smovement attemptsto return to a

form of genderrelations that has beenmadeoutrnded by changesin the needsof capital

 and in the state'semerging political ideology.

The masculinistmen'smovementhasthus far beenthe most successfulat

presentingitself to the media and public. Although this strandof the movemenris also still

small, is focus has beenrelatively cohesive,and its ideology is consistentwith a more

restrictively liberal state. The ground, then, seemsmost fertile for this strandof the

movement.

In the secondchapterof this paperI shall focus on the historical and ideological

context of different strandsof the men'smovement. The resurgenceof feminism as a mass

movementis an important historical event in genderrelationsand will help explain the

posturing of thesedifferent strandsof the emergingmen'smovement. To make the

challengepresentedby feminism clearer,I will also examineideolbgical shifts in the state

and the ideasof the humanpotential movementthat havecontributedto the liberal

countermovement. In the third chapterI will then focus more specifically on men's

movementorganizationsand how they affect and are affectedby the prevailing liberal

ideology. A processwill emergethat reflects the resiliency of liberalism. Liberals in the

movementchallengethe systemduring a period of expansiveliberalism. but then esrablish

an important liberal counterrnovementduring a period of restictive liberalism.

PROBLEM
An adequateframework hasnot yet beendevelopedto assessthe visibility and

political opportunitiesof different ideological segmentsof the men'smovement. Further,

while severalauthorshave addresseddivisions within the men'smovement,they have

generallynot relatedthesedifferencesto broaderchangesin patriarchalrelationsand state

ideology. The most recentand most complete charactenzationof ideological differences

within the men's movementis Kenneth Clatterbaugh'sarticle on "Masculinist perspectives"

(Clatterbaugh1988). Clatterbaughdefines "masculinism" as "any point of view that offers

an analysisof the social reality of American men and offers an agendafor them"
(Clatterbaugh1988: 4). He then divides the movementinto six categories: conservative

masculinism, anti-sexistmasculinism,men'srights masculinism,new age masculinism,

socialist masculinism,and group specific masculinisms.

My own categorizationof the movementdiffers in two ways. Fistly,I use

"masculinism" to refer only to the faction that Clatterbaughcalls "men'srights

masculinism." f do so becausethis faction claims to representa parallel to feminism.

Whereasfeminists seekwomen's rights and equality for women, masculinists seekmen's

rights and equality for men. In contrast,the conservatives(or traditionalists)don't seek

genderequality at all and the anti-sexists(or pro-feminiss) begin with their supportfor

feminist goals. Given Clatterbaugh'sdefinition of masculinism,we wbuld expect

feminism to include conservatives,suchas Schlafly,who have an analysisof women's

social position and an agendafor women. This clearly would be misleading.

Secondly,I combine someof the categories. Becausethe only national pro-

feminist organization(The National Organizationfor ChangingMen) includes socialistsand

proponentsof New Age spirituality, I combine thesecategorieswith the liberal and radical

anti-sexistmen. I agreewith Clanerbaughthat thesepositionsare theoreticallydistinct and

that New Age men differ considerablyin their ideological focus. However, neither the

socialistsnor the New Age advocateshavefound a home in other national organizations

and tend to associatethemselvesprimarily with pro-feminist men.

Clatterbaugh'scategoriesare a useful startingpoint becausethey do rely upon

movementideology as it relatesto patriarchy. However, his argumentis incomplete

becauseit does not specifically addressmen'smovementorganizatioru or the mntext in

which theseorganizationshave emerged.

Ehrenreich (1983) developsthe ideological roos of men's liberation and men's

rights, which are primarily associatedwith the liberal masculinistmen'smovement. Her

study attemptsto derive the sourceof a "male revolt" againstthe bneadwinnerethic and the
family wage. This so-calledrevolt is dubbedthe "flight from commitment." She does

reveal some of the contradictions in liberal thought ttrat provide women with bottt

inspiration and constraints. However, her study fails to distinguish beween the ideological

positions of the various organizationsin the men'srnovementand thus provides little point

of referencein assessingthe relative visibility of the liberal masculinistsas opposedto prG.

feminist nren or traditionalist men.

This presentstudy will attemptto fill thesegaps. My concernis how various

strandsof the men'snrovementmay affect the goals of feminism, given historical changes

in patriarchy and the stateideology. There has beena shift in patriarchy becauseas

industry has employed greaternumbersof women in the paid labor force, the authority of

man as father and husbandhas beendiminished. Meanwhile, women have become .

increasinglyconsciousof the genderstratihcationthat exiss in the paid labor market. This

is, therefore, an important juncture in terms of the state'sattemptto mystify gender

relations and discouragesexualconsciousness,which would promote radical democracy.

If the masculinistmen'smovementgains in size and visibility, then, it could be used to

legitimate social patriarchyand deny the demandsof radical and socialistfeminists.

REVIEWOF RELEVENTLITERATURE
The visibility of the pro-feminist, traditionalist and masculinist strandsof the men's

movementdependupon l) the cohesivenessof their ideology and 2) how that ideology

relatesto changesin stateideology and patriarchalrelations. Ehrenreich(1983) lnThe

Hearts of Men looked primarily at the masculiniststrandof the movementas a liberal

challengeto feminism and tried to explain the roots of theseliberal masculinistideas.

Ehrenreich(1983)focussedon the 1950sto formulatea thesisof man's"flight

from commitnent." She arguedthat the "family wage" was initially underminedby "a

rnale revolt -- though hardly organizedand seldomconsciousof its goals -- againstthe

breadwinnerethic" (13). As a result, sheargued,women "are increasingly dependenton

our own resources,but in a society and an economy that never intended to admit us as

independentpersons,much less as breadwinnersfor others" (Ehrenreich 1983: 175). The

conceptsof commitrnent and revolt, though, are misleading. In fact, Ehrenreichexpresses

her own reservationsin the conclusionof her book:

My own judgment, as the reader must know, is an ambivalent one. At

times I have felt that the various trendsand intellectual shifts examinedhere
deserveto be called less a'revolt'than an accomodation. What has been
understoodas masculinity ... was at odds with the more 'feminine' traits
appropriateto a consumption-orientedsociety...
@hrenreich1983: 170).

Astrachan (1986) criticizes Ehrenreich'sstudy, becauseshedoesn'taddressthe role

of the women'smovement "in changingthe traditional family" (199). Astrachanattributes

this oversight to Ehrenreich'sinterestin asserting"that feminism has not made war on the.

ideaof marriage"(Astrachan1983: l99). My own contentionis that Ehrenreich(1983)

writes herself into a corner by acceptinga premiseof conservativetheorists. The thesisof

a male revolt relies upon the premisethat men have no incentive to marry, becausethe

market has subsumedthe wife's role of providing services. As a consequence,Ehrenreich

opposeseconomic inequality but also bemoansthe abandonmentof the breadwinnerethic,

which encouragedmarried women to stay out of the paid labor force. The increasingly

serviceeconomy,while it may have displacedpart of the housewife'straditional role by

providing more services,has also employedmore married women. And many men

(accordingto Blumstein and Schwartz)would provide for their wives if they could.

Ehrenreichalso misrepresentsthe significanceof men'sstatedreluctanceto marry.

While men have for centuriesbemoanedan obligation to marry, "the vitality of marriage

has beenquite stupendous.Men have cursedit, aimed barbedwitticisms at it, denigrated

it, bemoanedit -- and never ceasedto want and needit or profit from it" (Bernard 1982:

16). And, in fact, the "gray flannel dissidents,"the consumersof Playboy, andthe Beats

of whom Ehrenreichwrote found themselvesincapableof successfullyrebelling: "White-

 'cheating'
coll.u men fretted about conformity or fantasizedabout with the smooth,pink

lovelies in Ployboy, but there was no real way out of the interlocking demandsofjob and

marriage" (Ehrenreich1983: 55). And "the Beatsremaineda miniscule minority," who had

scantappealto most glown men" (Ehrenreich1983: 53).

Astrachannotesthat most of the trendsthat Ehrenreichestablishes"preceded... and

helpedshapemale responses"to the women'smovement(Astrachan1983: 199). The

organized men'smovement,however,did not emergeuntil after the resurgenceof

feminism and after the founding of the National Organizationfor Women (NOW) in 1966

(the exceptionis the conservativedivorce reformerswhom Ehrenreichdoesn'tmention).

In fact the masculinistsrefer to early statementsfrom Friedan and NOW when they

condemnthe breadwinnerethic as no longer beneficial to men. Ratherthan focusing on an

unconsciousand unorganized"male revolt" againstthe commitment to protect women, we'

should be concernedwith men'sresponsibility for their privileged positon in society. This

includes a social and political responsibility for the oppressionof women. As Astrachan

points out, men "have seldominitiated demandsfor independenceor equality betweenthe

sexes." lnstead,they "were usuallytying to haveit both ways,privilege but no

burdens..."(Astrachan1983: 199). What Ehrenreichdoesaccomplish,however,is to

raisethe issueof the ideology of men'sliberation,which (aswe shall see)is how the

masculinistmen's movementfits into the state'sattemptto solve the crisis of liberalism and

remystify patriarchalrelations.

I M P O R T A N TC O N C E P T S
ln order to establishthe importanceof the ideological legitimation of power, I shall

begin with the prevailing liberal ideology, its inherentconmdictions in explaining social

oppressionand its importancefor both thoseprivileged groups seekingto maintain the

statusquo and those social movementschallengingthe existing order. I will specifically

considerhow liberalism addressesgenderand racial inequality. In both race and gender

relations the state tries to mediate power relations within the constraints of liberal theory

and the demandsof a capitalisteconomy. In trying to resolvecontradictionsbetween

liberat values and the inequalitiesproducedby capitalist,race and genderrelations,the state

attempts to modify the form of theseinequalities and their ideological justification.

I shall also addressshifts in patriarchalrelations. While the patriarchalfamily has

come under attack, social patriarchyremainsstrong. This shift in patriarchalrelations

favors the ideology of masculinistmen, who attack the patriarchalfamily but generally

accept social patriarchy.

Liberalism and Social Oppression

The liberal stateattemptsto maintainorder while preservingthe privilege of white
.
males and the profits of capitalists. In the process,however, contradictionsare sometimes

revealedwhen citizens organizeto place demandsupon the system. As long as these

demandsremain focusedupon an individual or group'sright to participate within the

existing system,the challengeis to expandthe system. However, the systemdoes not

expand without pressure. In responseto radical consciousnessand radical demandsthat

threatenexisting relations,the statemay either embraceliberal proceduralreforms to

demonstratethe system'sability to change(during a time of expansiveliberalism) or it may

discouragesuchdemandsby redefining liberalism to remystify power relations and to

stressthe limitations of reform (during a time of restrictive liberalism).

Privileged grcups rely upon ideology to explain and thus to more easily maintain

their dominance. As Blauner (1972) explains,social oppressionis built upon "the creation

and defenseof group privileges" (21): "To generateprivilege, certain people have to be

exploited, and to be exploited they must be controlled -- directly or indirectly. The

mechanismsof control ... are thereforecentral to an understandingof oppression"(22).

Important mechanismsin "controlling" blacks in the U.S., for instance,have been

7
constraints"ovetrthe movementsof the oppressedand restriction of their full participation

in society" (37). Thesemechanismsmay be enforced through law (such as vagrancy or

passlaws) o'r direct repression(such as white supremacistviolence), but "the most

common and more stablemechanismsresidein cultural beliefs and psychological

adaptations.Here the notion of place is central" (Blauner 1972: 37). This

institutionalized senseof boundariesis also central to the oppressionof women for whom

one definition of their rightful place hasbeen "in the home."

Social movementsalso rely upon ideology to explain and thus to sfengthen their

challengeto the dominant order. Both the systemand the insurgents,then, draw upon a

liberal tradition that is versatileenoughto supportcontestingpositions. Robert Blauner

arguesthat universalism,"the central value of the liberal philosophy," has nvo faces. On

the one hand it "has beenone of the greatprogressiveideas,affirming the essential

humanityof all people..."(Blauner 1972: 267). On the other hand,universalism"goes

hand in hand with individualism, and in the areaof race the nro join in the ideal of 'color

blindness"' (Blauner 1972: 267). Liberals define sexism and racism as prejudice rather

than institutional oppressionand exploitation. Opposition to affirmative action quotas,for

instance,hasbecomemainstreamwith the curent concernover "reversediscrimination."

While resourcesare important to a movement,the emergenceof insurgency

dependsupon support from indigenousresources(McAdam 1982). The elite do not

suppoft insurgency,which would threatentheir statusand power. However, liberal

funders and policy plannersmay provide supportand encouragementto reformist goals in

the face of social revolutionary pressures,particularly when a massmovementis strong.

During this period of expansiveliberalism, stateelites may seemsupportiveof the

movement. However, while elite supportmay increaseafter the movementbecomesmore

active (and experiencessomesuccess),their supportwill tend to encourageactivists to

moderate the goals of the rnovement. Liberals in the movement will be more likely to ury

working within the system. When radicalscontinue to pressdemandsthat cannot be

satisfiedwithin the system,the movementrisks becomingfragmented.

Radical demands,along with the growing expenseof implementedreforms, hasten

a phaseof restrictive liberalism. Restrictiveliberals attemptto contain the movement's

goals by arguing that the reforms haven'tworked, that governmentprogmms havejust

raisedexpectations,and that the electoratemust be satisfiedwith less. Unlike the

conservatives,the restrictive liberals acceptmany of the reforms (which they saw as

necessary),but they also recognizethe dangerof radicals within the movement,who are

"extreme" in their demands. The liberals recognizethat containingthe movementis more

consistentwith the statedprinciples of a liberal democracythan is direct repression(except

in dire circumstances).Repression,after all, will reveal the contradictionsthat exist

betweenelite rule and liberal idealsof eoualiw and freedom.

Shift in PatriarchalRelations
According to Eisenstein,"The understandingof patriarchy cannot be limited to

either a particular family form (father,husband)or a static notion of male biological power

(strength,aggression)"@isenstein1984: 90). Ratherthan being a staticreality, then,

patriarchy adoptsnew forms as the economic and social structureof societychanges.

Gersonand Peiss(1985)dehnepatriarchyin termsof boundaries,which are "the complex

structures-- physical, social, ideological, and psychological -- which establishthe

differencesand commonalities... shapingand constrainingthe behavior and attitudesof

eachgendergroup"(Gerson&Peiss 1985: 318).

To define patriarchy in terms of the demandsof sex roles is inadequate,because

this explanationfails to convey the problematicnatureof pariarchy. And, as Bowles and

Gintis (1987) have observed,"the perpetuationof any power structureis generally

problematic" (94). In responseto the inadequacyof sexualroles in defining patriarchy,

Gerson and Peiss(1985) have establisheda definition basedinstead upon gender

relations. From this perspective,they argue,"genderis not a reified analytic category

imposedon human experiencebut a fluid one whosemeaningemergesin specific social

contextsas it is createdand recreatedthrough human actions" (317).

The boundarieshave changed,but the negotiatedrelationshipof genderhas

continuedto be charactetizedbymale dominance. For instance,women have increasingly

enteredthe "public sphere"in a way ttrat shifts the boundariesbetweenpublic and private

life. This certainly threatensthe stability of a particular reified form of patriarchy,but

patriarchalrelations may continue in anotherform with renewedlegitimacy. As Bowser

(1985) points out, racism also takesdifferent forms as socioeconomicconditions change:

"As eachmode of discriminationis challenged,a new one can easily take its place because

the centralmotivationis still intact and unchanged"(Bowser 1985: 319).

Although the participationof women in the workforce hasnever fallen to the pre-

World War tr level, women's "position in the work force" after World War II "dropped

drastically" (Freeman1975: 23). As McAdam arguessomehistorical periodsprovide a

more conducive environmentfor insurrectionthan do others. By the early 1960s,the

political opportunitiesfor women had increasedconsiderablybecauseof shifting

boundariesthat madecontradictionsbetweenwomen'sposition and liberal promisesmore

apparent.

Herethenis the contradiction:advanced capitalism,because of structural

changesandinflation,hasrequiredmarriedwomento enterthelaborforce.
Althoughthe structureof thecapitalistmarketis patriarchal,
its ideologyis
definatelyliberal... Thereinlies a major crisis for liberalism: the
contradictoryreality of patriarchalinequalityin an ideologyof (liberal)
equalityis beinguncoveredby themarriedwage-earning woman.
(Eisenstein1984: 52)

The issuesaroundwhich both thewomen'sandmen'smovementswouldmobilize

becamevital because
of theseshiftingboundaries.As long asthepatriarchalfamily
remainedrelativelystable,thefamily couldbedehnedas"protectedfrom therelationsof
powerin society"@isenstein
1983:46). Women'srelationsto powercouldthusbe

10
mystified by establishingthat women (and pafticularly married women with children)

worked in the home, which was a private (thus not a political) realm. With an increasingly

serviceeconomy,though, "someof the relational and ideological needsof patriarchy have

been undermined, and as a result the systemof familial patriarchy appears less able to

sustain tlu rystem of social patriarchy" [emphasisadded] (Eisenstein1983: 47). Given

this instability, the statehas attemptedto mediate the needsof capitalism and the patriarchal

family @isenstein1984: 94). Inasmuchas the stateprovides supportfor social patriarchy,

it discouragesthe political visibility of pro-feminist men. And given the weakeningof the

patriarchalfamily, traditionalist men are marginalized. The masculinists,though,represent

the "new man," who can maintain male dominancewhile changinghis defined role in the

family. Becausethis is consistentwith the dominant stateideology, masculinistmen have

receivedconsiderablymore attentionthan the other factions.

11
 CHAPTERII
THE CONTEXTOF THE MEN'S MOVEMENT

CONTEXTFOR PRO.FEMINIST
MEN
The context in which the profeminist men'smovementemergedwas one of

expansiveliberalism. Public supportfor liberal feminist reforms was high, and the state

was making someconcessions.Most of the men who organizedand joined the pro-

feminist rnen'smovement supportedthe goals of women'srighs but may have felt some

ambivalencetoward radical feminism. Organizationsthat were formed and disbandedin

the 1970shad such titles as Men Allied Nationally for the Equal Rights Amendment

(M.A.N. for E.R.A.) and Men's Alliance for Liberation and Equality (M.A.L.E.) (see

Farrell 1978and Kleiman 1978).

As with feminist women, the ideology of pro'feminist men was divided from its

inception. The larger number have pressedfor legal reforms to protect women'srights and

legally recognizewomen'sequality. A smaller number have worked on such issuesas

male violence and pornography,arguing that inequality hasits roots not just in law but also

in cultural meaning and personalrelationsand that theseroots must also be addressed

politically.

In order to understandthe ideological divisions within the pro-feminist men's

movementand its presentposition relative to stateideology, I will examinethe general

conceptof expansiveliberalism and the re-emergenceof feminism as a massmovement

divided betweenliberals and radicals.

Expansive Liberalism
Again,it is imponant
to notethattheelitedonothaveaninterest
in supporting
social movementsuntil they presentsomechallenge. JamesGeschwender(1977) explains

t2
that when "the resistanceis too strong to be crushed,then the exploiting group may be

forced to retreat through a panial abandonmentof the systemof racial exploitation" (2).

The sameis true of genderexploitation. This is the responseof expansiveliberalism.

Becausegenderrelationsfunction within a political context, the statehas an interest

in maintaining the pariarchal privilege of men in our society. Statepolicies, then, shift to

provide new ways of resolving conflicts that surfacebetweenthe needsof capital, gender

relations,and the prevailing interpretationof liberal values. As the liberal centerhas shifted

in the past twenty yqlrs, the reaction of the stateto demandsof the women'smovement and

the men'smovement haschangedaccordingly.

In the early 1960sthe Kennedy administrationattemptedto moderatethe goals of

feminists by providing supportto limited legal reforms for women's rights. Feree and

Hess suggestthat John Kennedy "brought women'srighs back into the political forum"

during the 1960campaign(Fereeand Hess 1985: 20). Yet, Kennedywas no women's

rights activist. A year after being elected,Kennedy was confronted at a news conference

by May Craig of the Portland (ME) Press-Herald. The report appearedunder the heading,

"A ChivalrousKennedyBacksWomen'sRights":

PresidentKennedy smiled his way out of a bristling question on

women'srights at his news conferencetoday.
A woman questionernotedthat the Democraticpresidentialplatrorm
had promised equal rights for women, including equal pay. She asked:
"What have you done for the women according to the promises of
the plaform?"
"'Well," said Mr. Kennedy,"I am surewe have not done enough."
He addedwhen the laughtersubsided,that he believedin equalpay
for equal work and thought "we ought to do better than we are doing."
"I am glad you reminded me of it," he concluded to more male
laughterfrom the audience"(New York Times, 1961,N9, 14: 6).

Still, Kennedy did offer someimpetus to the rights of professionalwomen. In

Decemberof 1961,Kennedyestablishedthe President'sCommissionon the Statusof

Women "at the behestof EstherPeterson,then director of the Women's Bureau [footrote

removedl" @reeman1975: 52). Evans (1979) has written that "the pu{pose,in fact, may

t3
have beento quell a growing pressurefor an Equal Rights Amendment,but unwittingly the

governmentorganizedits own opposition" (16).

In 1963 Kennedy'scommission issuedits report, rejecting the ERA as unnecessary

but recommendingequal pay in federal employment. In response,Kennedy signedthe

Equal Pay Act. If women were to be hired for professionaljobs, they had to be paid

equally. Freeman(1975) noted that suchlegislation had beenpreviously suggestedby

protectioniststo keep women from undercuttingmen's wages. And, in fact, both Peterson

and honorary chair Eleanor Roosevelt had long supportedequal pay as an alternative to the

ERA. Freemanwrites, however, that "equal pay was irrelevent without equaljob

opportunity" (Freeman 1975: 176).

Similarly, Doug McAdam (1982)notesthat,in the early 1960s,the goalsof black.

insurgency"centeredmore on the integrationof blacks into various areasof American life

rather than on any major restructuringof the dominant economicand political institutions of

society" (McAdam 1982: 164). This liberal focus on legal rights found increasingsupport

in the generalpublic and was not adamentlyopposedby the state,except when illegal

tactics were used. Unlike the conservatives,who favored continued repression,the

expansiveliberals recognizedthat becauseof public supportfor the movement'sgoals, "the

cost of openly racist rhetoric or policies" in the early 1960swas "the disaffection of the

white liberal community..."(McAdam 1982: 159).

For women of all races,then, the early 1960swas a time when expansiveliberals

agreedto some beneficial legal reforms. These reforms had the effect of removing some of

the constraintsto opportunity, though it didn't assurejust results.

Liberal Feminism and Women's Rights

Changesin genderrelationsand the developmentof a notion of sexualpolitics must

be understoodwithin the b'roadersocioeconomiccontext of the United States. After

t4
women gained the vote in the United States,the women's suffragecoalition unraveled.

Reportedly the movement "died" to be reborn in responseto Kennedy's Commission on

the Statusof Women. In fact, a deep split emergedin the feminist movementthat would

not be mendeduntil the late 1960s.

Excluding black women (of whom nearly half over the age of 16 worked) the vast

majority (77Vo)of women in the paid labor force in the 1920swere "young and single,

mostly from immigrant and poor families" (Fereeand Hess 1985: 2). Most women who

remained in the paid labor force during the Depression years of 1928-1939 were limited to

low-paying occupations,and laws restrictedmarried women from working becauseof a

concern that they would takejobs from male breadwinners.Theseconditions tendedto

divide women on the basisof class,race,and marital status. Women'sgroups,then,were

largely divided by classinto professionalclubs and labor unions.

The National Women's Party had emergedfrom the suffragecampaignwith a dual

focus of supportfor the Equal Rights Amendment (first introducedin Congressin 1923)

and for women running for public office. Norma KrauseHerzfeld (1960) wrote that the

ERA had "split organizedAmericanwomanhoodright in two" (517). Among the groups

supponing the ERA were the National Federationof Businessand ProfessionalWomen's

Clubs and the General Federationof Women's Clubs. Groups opposing the ERA included

the National Leagueof Women Voters, the National Associationof University Women, the

National Council of Catholic Women and "labor groups" (Herzfeld 1960: 518).

Feministswho opposedthe ERA supportedlaws guaranteeing"e4ual pay for equal

work" but thought the ERA would threatenlegislation protecting working women.

According to FrancesPerkins (1927), "the trade union women" were "leadersin the

movementfor" protectivelegislation (23). Such legislationincluded a minimum wage for

women and limits upon the number of hours women could work per day. Herzfeld (1960)

suggestedthat under equal pay legislation professionalwomen worked "on a kind of

15
'separate
but equal'basis..."(518). ElizabethFaulknerBaker (1927) noted,in fact, that

protective legislation did not benefit women if they were "in the minority in the occupation

or industry" to which the laws applied (12). In theseoccupations,she says,women "may

well fear for the security of their positions" (Baker 1927: 26).

Supportersof the ERA, who were critical of "speciallegislative protection" argued

that suchprotection should be provided to all workers regardlessof gender. The question

posedwas whether women workers neededprotection becausethey were women (as the

courts and many male unions believed)or becausethey were workers. And if the latter,

was it more effective to first end discrimination or to use specialprotection as "a stepping

stoneto the legal protection of all workers" (Baker 1927: l2).

Following World War II, the United Statesentereda period of prolongedeconomic

expansionthat was distinguishedby a growing public sectorand an increasingly service

economy. The family wage was threatened(for thosewho had it) by inflation and "there

was a high needfor well-educatedlow-paid clerical and serviceworkers" (Freeman1975:

24). Maried women beganentering the workforce in greaternumbersto fill positions in

thesenew industriesand to provide additional income for a growing consumerdemand.

The trend between 1940and 1960was of women re-enteringthe workforce in middle age

after their children were raised. The statewas characterizedby exparuiveliberalism.

In spite of a cultural focus upon women'srole in the home, "the percentageof

wife-mothers in the labor force rose steadily in the 1950'sin responseto labor demand and

the consumereconomy,which benefittedfrom a supplementedfamily wage" (Fereeand

Hess 1985: 5). Among women whosehusbandswere presentin the family, l4.7Vowere

employed in 1940. Except for a bniefdecline after World War II, employment in this group

hasrisen steadilyto 5l%oin 1981. In comparisonemploymentamongsinglewomen

increasedfrom 48.l%oto 62.3Voand among widowed or divorced women from32Vo to

41.9 percent.

There has also beena crisis in the marital union. What needsto be explained,

16
though, is not the breakdownof the family pr s, but the erosionof a particular family

form in which the husbandand father had authority. With women earning money in the

paid labor force, somemen have questionedtheir own role as sole financial provider. In

fact, "the historical evidencesuggeststhat while both masculinity and femininity are

socially constructedwith [the] historical context of genderrelations,definitions of

masculinity are historically reactiveto changingdefinitions of femininity" (Kimmel 1987:

123). Both feminism and restrictive liberal masculinismrespondedto structuralchanges

that have madetraditional relationsvulnerableto attack. The "male revolt" and the "flight

from commiftnent", then, are part of men'sresponseto their diminishing role as protector

of women. By arguing that men do not benefit from this role, Ehrenreichtendsto

underminethe theoreticalnotion of the patriarchalfamily. Sheconvenientlydismisses

offhand, for instance,JessieBernard'scontentionthat men gain emotional security while

maintaining economic power: "... contrary to all the chargesleveled againstit, the

husband'smarriage, whether they like it or not (and they do), is awfully good for them"

(Bernard1982: 16).

By the 1960swomen were also bettereducatedthan they had ever beenbefore

(Freeman 1975: 29). The National Woman's Party was still pushing for passageof the

ERA. During the presidentialcampaignof 1960,the National Woman's Party sent

"deputationsto all announcedcandidatesfor Presidentin behalf of the long-pendingequal-

rights amendment"(New York Times 1960,Jan.6, 19: 5). In 1963,Betty Friedanwrote

The Feminine Mystique, which called upon women to get out of the home and do more

with their lives. Between 1960 and 1980,moreover,more "mothersintemrpted

employment for increasingly shorterperiodsof child raising, or simply shifted to part-time

work" (Fereeand Hess 1985: 2).

In 1964the provision of equal employmentoppornrnity in the Civil Rights Act was

amendedto include "sex." In part this was attributedto a proceduralmaneuverby

t7
legislatorsattemptingto kill the Civil Rights Act. Consequently,the enforcementof equal

employment opportunity for women was less than vigorously enforced. This becamethe

focus of a renewedinterestin feminism. In June 1966,at the third annual convention of

the statecommissions,a resolutionto pressurethe Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission (EEOC) to enforceequal opportunity for women was squelchedby

conferenceoffrcials. In response,Beffy Friedan and two dozenconferencedelegates

formed the National Organization for Women (NOUD to end employment discrimination

againstwomen (Freeman1975: 55).

Freeman(1975) arguesthat, during its frst year, NOW "reflected its limited origins

more than its broad goals" (75). At its secondconferencein November 1967,NOW had

increasedits membershipto 1,200prsons. Conflict eruptedover proposalsto support an

Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) and women'sreproductiverights. Some women who

had wanted to maintain a niurow agendaformed the Women'sEquity Action kague in the

fall of 1968. In addition, a couple of NOW lawyers formed the Human Rights for

Women. Even with the issuesof the ERA and reproductivefreedom, though, NOW was

basically a liberal organization: "NOW's intention never was to subvertmale bastionsof

power, but to ... enablewomen to work alongsidemen in education,employmentand

politics" (Wickenden 1986: 20). In fact, Ehrenreich(1987) recently noted in an article for

Ms. that most of the successesof the women'smovement thus far have benefitted

professionalwomen more than working classand poor women.

The National OrganizationforWomen rediscoveredthe issueof the Equal Rights

Amendment as an avenuefor ending sex discrimination. Still, the ERA, though apparently

necessary,was a limited strategyfor achieving women'sequality. In fact, "the ERA

campaignwas in part an effoft by the moderatewomen'smovement to shakeoff the vague

revolutionism of radical feminism," and "even many supportersof the ERA were skeptical

about its potential for bringing a more egalitariansociety" (Wickenden 1986: 20). While

Burris has shown that working classfamilies generally supportedthe ERA as a meansof

18
helping working women, the emphasison the ERA may have come at the expenseof

programsthat could have beenmore helpful: "Pay equity may result at last in higher wages

for women in underpaidjobs. But it will not necessarilyensurean equal distribution of

labor" (Wickenden 1986: 24). Rather,it is necessaryto addressthe demandsof the

institution of motherhood. Theseinclude legal and economic a@essto binh control,

abortion and day care. It also includesexploring new family forms and organizing

women's labor. As the women of NOW have focusedon theseother issuesthey have

sharpenedtheir critique of patriarchy.

The National Organizationfor Women was establishedas a national group without

an agendafor grassrootsorganizing. Evans (1979) wrote that "in general,the professional

women who createdNOW acceptedthe division benveenthe public and private spheresand

choseto seekequality primarily in the public realm" (19). It was for this reason,suggests

Evans, that NOW could not alone organizea massmovementat the grassroots.

As NOW grew in size,the organizationbecamemore decentralizedand established

regional and statestructuresto coordinatelocal activities with national goals. Following a

demonstrationfor women'srights on August 26,1970, the involvementgrew quickly, and

the composition of NOW changed(Freeman,p. 85). Increasinglyradical women from the

women's liberation groupsbecameinvolved with NOW at the local level, and thesegroups

(and their publications) servedas "an ideological vanguard"in the transformationof NOW

(Freeman 1975: 99\.

ln l97l NOW passeda resolutionrecognizinglesbiansexuality as a legitimate

'purge'
option for women. This cameafter Friedan,in 1969and 1970,had set out "to

NOW of what shecalled the 'lavendarmenace"'(Freeman1975: 99). Eisenstein(1981),

recognizing this shift in NOWs agenda,cornmentedthat "NOW appearsto be moving

away from Friedan'smainstreampolitics of the 1960's" (192). She cautions, however,

that NOV/ remains limited by its liberal origins and its failure to develop an explicitly

19
radical feminist identity to guide its more radical agenda- Reproductive freedom and

lesbianrighs are defined in terms of liberal law rather than as sexualpolitics. Thus, for

instance,it has beendifficult to mobilize for financial arcessto abortion services.

While the ERA is a limited goal and abortion has beendefined in terms of liberal

rights rather than as an issueof power, thesehave becomecampaignson which liberal and

radical feminists could work together,and NOW has tendedto include more radical

demandsthan when it began. In part this is due to difficulties in achieving equality through

liberal means. Ending sex discriminationis not completeand hasfailed to createpolitical

and economic equality for women. Women's wagescontinue to be less than those of men.

Most positions of institutional leadenhip (including the corporateboardroomsand the halls

of Congress)continue to be occupied by men. "In 1980 two out of three adults who fit

into the federal definition of poverty were women, and more than half the families defined'

as poor were maintainedby single women" @hrenreich 1983: 172). This "feminization of

poverty" was documentedby Diana Pearce(1978). While divorced women with children

tend to experiencea loss of their standardof living, divorced men tend to enjoy an increase

in their standardof living (seeWeitzman 1985).

Radical Feminism and Women's Liberation

In an effort to explain the connectionsbetweentheir sexualdegradationand male

dominancein the so-calledpublic sphere,feminist theoristsbeganto challengethe

limitations placed upon political theory and action. According to Evans (1979), a

workshop at the 1965conferenceof the Studentsfor a Democratic Society (SDS) planted

the seedsof the women's liberation movementthat would come to fruition n 1967. Casey

Hayden and Mary King composeda memo that criticized "a castesystemthat, at its worst,

usesand exploits women" @vans 1979: 235). The workshop also utilized many of the

processesof consciousness-raising
that would be centralto the independentwomen's

liberation movement. The Free SpeechMovement and protestsagainstthe Vietnam War

20
 had begun to transform the characterof SDS, and "as the movementgrew and changed,the

question of women's roles had simultaneouslybegun to surface" @vans 1979: 159).

While the movementconstituencygrew larger and studentsbeganfocusing on their

own position in the system,women in the movementfound it "more alienating,more

massive,competitive, and sexually exploitive" @vans 1979: l7O). The movementbecame

more focusedon the university setting,and the culnrral protestswere becoming more

focusedon young men resisting the draft.

The older wornen in the movement,who were often married and had much

experiencein SDS, raised the issueof women'sposition, but it was their younger sisters

who frequently expressedgreateranger@vans 1979: 167). A statementthat emerged

from the December1965conferencechallengedthe men of the movementto explore within

themselvestheir inconsistencyin relating to movementwomen. Somemen eventually took

such a challengeto heart and anendedconsciousness-raising

groups that would be the

beginningof a pro-feministmen'smovement.

A "Women's Liberation Workshop" was organizedat the SDS convention of June

1967. This workshop presenteda set of demands,along with an analysis that compared

women'sstatusto that of Third World nations. Conflict ensued: "Most of the men who

spokeacceptedthe notion of sexualcastesystem,but they arguedstrenuouslyagainstthe

third world analogy" @vans 1979: 192). Women's demandswere belittled and theNew

Ldt Notes included an unsympatheticgraphic with its report of the evenrs.

The radical women'smovementconsistedof small autonomousgroups who

organizeddramatic actionsand called themselvessuch namesas Redstockings,Bread and

Roses,or W.I.T.C.H. (Women'sInternationalTerrorist ConspiracyFrom Hell). Many

women'sliberationgroupsformed in late 1967 andinto 1968. In 1968,twenty-two

women from women's liberation groups met in Sandy Springs,Maryland. Many activist

women wanted to maintain their ties to the New lrft, and the only issue settledwas to hold

an open convention in Chicagoon Thanksgiving. At that meeting200 women attendedand

2l
were involved in much debateand dissensionbefore retuming to work in their local areas

(Freeman1975: 106-7). While many of the new women to join such groups focused only

on "women's issues,"those women with experiencein the New Left continued to view

women'sconcernswithin a broaderpottical context. The former preferredthe term

"women's liberation" while the latterpreferred the term "radical women" (108). As we

shall see,the pro-feminist men have also beendivided over the terrnsusedto define

themselves.

The New York RadicalWomen organizeda protestat the Miss America Pagaenton

September7,1968. Two hundredwomen demonstratedagainstthe pagaentwith such

activities "as the crowning of a live sheepas Miss America ... and a FreedomTrash Can

into which demonstratorsthrew their stenopads,dish cloths,curlers,falseeyelashes,

girdles and bras" (McAllister 1988: 138). The media characterizedthe event as "b'ra

burning," apparentlyto convey a similarity to other radical actions,such as flag or draft

card burnings.

Violence againstwomen hasbeena centralfacet of the sexualpolitics that concern

radicalwomen. Beautypagaentswere a target,explainsMcAllister (1988),becausethey

"serveto sanctionpublic scrutiny and ranking of female bodiesand thus legitimize the

objectification of women. This objectification, the protestersclaim, feedsthe climate of

violence againstwomen" (139). In addition to beautypagaents,radical women have

organized againstpornography,marital violence, rape, sexualharassment,and so on.

By 1983,accordingto Fereeand Hess, "the vital and influential liberation groups

had either dissolvedor lost focus..."(Fereeand Hess 1985: 62). This supposedly

coincided with a merglng of radical women and liberal feminists. Yet many radical

feminists continue to act autonomouslyof NOW and other liberal feminist organizations.

ln 1974,for instance,women on the West Coastbeganan annual protest of the

Miss California Pagaent. Among the activities have beenwomen "in the streetsoutsidethe

22
 'MISS-
auditorium"yelling chantsandwearing"bannerswith theinscriptions
"MIS S-OGYNE,'and'MISS ANNA-
INFORMED,"MI$$-USED,"MIS S-FORT"[.JNE,
REXIA"'(McAllister1988: 139).Nikki Craft,whomMcAllister(1988)calls"a guiding

spirit at theprotess"(139),hasfoundedsuchorganizations
asthePreyingMantisBrigade,

Citizensfor MediaResponsibilityWithoutl-aw (a.k.a.Outlawsfor SocialResponsibility),

Exploitation
CrossYour HeartSupportNetwork, andNaturiss Opposedto Pornographic
( N . O.P .E .).

Conflict in Feminist ldeology

One issueof greatcontentionbetweenfeminist women is how to confront

pornography. Andrea Dworkin, a radical feminist who helped draft ordinancesin

Minneapolis and Indianapolis,expressesand often representsthis conflict:

While many feministsdisavow Miss Dworkin and her work, she,in turn, is
critical of what shecalls "organizedfeminism" for not taking a stronger
standagainstpornography. "The National Organizationfor Women is
incredibly cowardly and timid on the issue," she said, "becausethey don't
want to alienatetheir liberal supporters"
(New YorkTimes,Aug. 26,1985,87: 2).

Radical feminists like Dworkin recognizethat the liberal notions of freedom and

privacy (implying that the personalis not political) are frequentlyexploited by capitalistsin

the sex industry. Irgal rights in a liberal society are an enigma. Our focus is usually upon

the liberation of the citizenry from illegitimate repression.However, in our capitalist

society corporationsare also legally personswith penonal rights (which is relatedto the

conceptof free enterprise). In such a society "free speech"hasdifficulty competing with

"bought spe@h." Marcuseaddressedthis paradoxof freedom in a repressivesociety when

he wrote that "freedom (of opinion, of assembly,of speech)becomesan instrumentfor

absolving servitude. And yet ... the existenceand practice of theseliberties remain a

precondition for the restorationof their original oppostionalfunction ..." (Marcuse 1965:

84).

23
 While liberals risk being ccopted or exploited by free enterprise, the radical critique

of male violence runs the risk of being co-optedby conservativetheoristswho want to

represssexuality. Many radical feminists who write aboutpornographyor "distinctions

betweenerotica and pornognphy" tend to useterms that make it "very difficult to think

about the issueof sex in any other than protective terms" (Eisenstein 1984: 249). They do

this by stressingthe connectionsbetweenthe consumptionof pornographyand male

violence againstwomen. Writes Eisenstein(1984): "Most of the anti-pornography

movement links sex and violence, heterosexualsex and rape" (250). Eisensteinaddsthat

unlessone wants to arguethat all sexually active women are victims of false
consciousness, one must deal with the contradictorymechanismby which,
in spite of the patriarchal contours, heterosexualwomen desire sexual
pleasurewith men, women are arousedby pornography ... and so on.
@isenstein1984: 250)

Many radical and socialistfeminists, though, resistpornographywithout appealing

to the law for protection. The Outlaws for Social Responsibility,for instance,practice civil

disobedienceto empower women and to stress"corporateand individual responsibiliry"

(Craft 1985: 7). The Outlaws for Social Responsibilitypromote sexualliberation while

acting againstexploitation. They expresssupportfor "nudity and sensuality,"for "diverse

consentingsexualexperience,"and for "explicit sexualmaterials"(Craft 1985: 7). At the

sametime, they also recognizethat pornographyis not an abstractissueremoved from

capital and sexualclassrelations. Rather,pornographyrepresentsthe prevailing imagesof

women and sexuality,which are part of the cultural legitimation of patriarchalrelations,of

the boundariesthat restrict women and of the domination exercisedby men as a sexual

class. Furthermore,as in other businesses,the "sex indusbry"typically follows the model

of men owning and profiting from women's labor.

The Outlaws for Social Responsibilitybelieve that pornographyand advertisinguse

women's imagesto reflect and promote "body hatredand guilt conceming normal

functions" (Craft 1985: 7). They object to the use of "women's bodies to sell products"

24
and violence againstwomen sold "for entertainmentand men'sprofit..." (Craft 1985: 7).

Becausethey perceivepornogrlphy to be consistentwith other cultural representationsof

wornen and with other exploitation of women'slabor, they want to publicly confront

pornographywithout censoringor banning is production or consumption. They believe

that a ban would sweepthe issueunder the table and protect it from scrutiny. To be clear

about what they are protesting,they stateup front, "SEX IS NOT OBSCENE! The real

obscenityis the marketingof women as products..."(Craft 1985: 7). Ratherthan

focusing on contractualor legal rights, then, the Outlaws for Social Responsibility

emphasizethe classrights of women.

SHIFT IN STATE IDEOLOGY

The post-Vietnamperid hasbeenmarked by a searchfor a new ideological center.

Elite funders have becomedissatisfredwith the gowth of the welfare sectorand the liberal

agendathat has supportedit. Neoconservativeor restictive liberal policy plannershave

developedplans to slow liberal reforms and "correct" for the presumedexcessesof

liberalism (see,for example,Fergusonand Rogers 1986). The statehas thus assumedan

ideology of restrictive liberalism.

Sincethe VieuramWar, the U.S. economyhasbeenincreasinglyplagued,and the

RepublicanPany hasmaintainedthe presidencywith the exceptionof the four yearsof the

CarterAdministration following the Watergatescandal. Liberal feminists and blacks have

made significant gains,particularly in terms of legal protectionsand somenew social

services,but econornictroublescombined with pressuresfrom the civil rights, new left,

and feminist movementsfueled a reactionarymovementfrom the new right. The new

centeris now being establishedby restrictiveliberal policy planners. Theserestrictive

liberals expressthe sentimentthat liberalism has gone too far. In order to constrainthe

demandsplaced upon government,they attemptto limit the notion of equal oppornrnity to

25
 its most narow interpretation. Meanwhile, they attemptto avert the possibility that

demandsmadeon the basisof equal opportunity will exposethe contradictionsbetweenthe

conceptof equality and the continuedexistenceof hierarchy and oppression(seeEisenstein

1981).Theserestrictiveliberalsmay ally themselveswith someconservatives

and even
borrow some of their rhetoric. Their goal, however, is not a conservativerevolution, but a

new liberal center.

CONTEXTFOR TBADITIONALIST
MEN
Traditionalist men haveorganizedin a spirit of resistanceto changesthat threaten

the traditionally personalauthority of men. Traditionalist men may concedethat women are

capableof performing somejobs in the paid labor force, and they may even acceptsome

changesin women'srole. They are clear,however,that men and women are different and

that, even if they perform new roles,women shouldn'tunderminemale authority. For

Gilder the risk is that men will lose their motivation. For activistsin the traditionalistmen's

movementthe risks are 1) that women will be given so much specialtreatrnentby the state

and the courtsthat they won't needtheir husbandsand2) that childrenwill eitherbe soft or

overly rebelliouswithout male authorityanddiscipline. The traditionalistmen's

movement,then,is connectedwith conservativetheoriesand the goalsof anti-feministsof

the "pro-family" New Right.

Conservative Response to the Liberal Crisis

Conservatives
haveresponded
primarilyto a crisisof authorityandproposeda
returnof previousboundaries.Someconservative
scholarshaveusedsociobiologyin an
attemptto defendtraditionalvaluesandrespectfor authorityasnatural.philip Green
(1981)arguesthattheseconservative
"arguments,
takentogether,... implicitly...repudiate
theentireethosof liberaldemocracy;
theirappealis designedfora timeof crisis,notfor
tlrc long run femphasis
addedl"(10). A brief glimpseat theseconservarives
will

26
demonstratethat the so called "neoconservatives"are, in fact, liberals.

StevenGoldberg,the authorof The Inevitability of Patriarcfty, reflects the interests

of the true conservativesin his assertion"that by naturewomen can never be the equalsof

men in the questfor leadership"b@ausemen "are much more likely than women to exhibit

a drive to dominance" (Green l98l: 127). Goldberg attributesthis male aggressionto

hormones,which determinethe needsof the male psyche. Men must, by their nature,

dominate; otherwise they would not be men. GeorgeGilder, "one of Goldberg's

populizers"(Greenl98l: 134),developsa self-consciouslyconservativepolitical agenda.

Recognizingthat women can and do work in the paid labor force, Gilder relies on a

variation of protecting the man'sfamily wage. For the sakeof their husbands,their

marriagesand their counbry,arguesGilder, women should not work even though they are

capableof doing so. When women work, he explains,they underminethe man'ssenseof

obligation to support lrri family. They also underminethe work ethic for the man, who is,

by naturemore inclined to recklessabandonand the unbridled pursuit of pleasure(male

aggressiongone wild). In short,women'srole in the paid labor force has supposedly

worked to underminepatriarchalauthority and stability (Gilder 1973; seealso Armstrong

1983andEisenstein1984).

Gilder arguesthat marriageis necessaryto control men'ssexualdrive because

"sexualfreedomis seenas destructiveto the moral fabric of society..."@isenstein1984:

55). This control is the wife's role. For the conservativesthe corrolary to this is that

women are more privileged than men. The conservativesarguethat for women to protect

their naturalprivilege and for the moral good of the nation, women should return to the

home and men shouldresumetheir bneadwinnerrole. The conservativescontendthat this

"commitment" as breadwinneris the mechanismof social conrol that preventsmen from an

unrestrainedpunuit of pleasure. Gilder "arguesfor inequality betweenmen and women in

the economicrealm in order to establishthe importanceand privilege of man as

breadwinner,to counterthe 'naturalprivilege of women"' (Eisenstein1984: 54).

27
Anti-FeministWomen
Before founding the Eagle Forum, Phyllis Schlafly was an organizerwithin the

conservativewing of the RepublicanParty. Klarch (1987) associatesthis wing of the

Republicanswith the John Birch Society: "While the John Birch Society epitomizesthe

radical right of the 1950s,... the Society is a crucial link betweenthe Old Right and the

social conservatismof the New Right" (225).

The Eagle Forum's "pro-family" agendastressesa needfor authority in the family,

which is presumedto be a traditional nuclearfamily. This demandsalso a cultural respect

for authority: "The Eagle Forum, 'a national organizationof women and men who believe

in God, Home, and Country,'believesthat it is the responsibilityof societyto honor the

careerof motherhoodby recognizingthe right of women to be a full-time wife and mother.

and to have laws that obligate her husbandto provide the primary financial supportand a

home for her and their children Bagle Forum flyer, Box 618, Alton, n- 62002)"

@isenstein1984: 177). It's clear that authority also carries a burden of responsibility, and
women are consideredto be in the enviableposition of being protectedby good masters.

Likewise the citizens are protectedby benevolentleadersin a hierarchythat is part of ttre

naturalorder: "Antifeminists ... argueagainstsexualequalityand for'justice,' that is,

difference and protection" (Eisenstein1984: 169).

Deidre English (1983) has observedthat theseanti-feministsalso claim "to standfor

the best interestsof all women" (477). Thesewomen have blamed feminism for the

breakdownof the family. English (1983) characterizesthe anti-feminist women's

movementas expressinga "fear that feminism will free men first":

If women hold jobs, no matter how poorly paid, men may more easily
renounce any responsibility for the economic support of women and
children. Thus woman's meager new economic independence,and her
grcater sexual freedom outsidethe boundsof marriagehave allowed men to
gamer greatnew freedom.(481)

28
CONTEXTOF THE MASCULINISTMEN'S MOVEMENT
The masculinistmen'smovementis the one strandwhoseroots Ehrenreich (1983)

addressedat length. From her argumentI draw the importanceof the human potential

movement as a sourceof the individualism that'svital to men'sliberation and men'srights.

BecauseI am also concernedwith the changingideology of the state,though, I begin my

examinationof the roots of masculinismwith a descriptionof restrictive liberalism. Here I

draw primarily from Steinfels' (1979) study of neoconservatives,while contendingthat the

neoconservativeis nrore appropriately deemeda restrictive liberal. I will then focus on the

liberal countefinovementto show how both the women's movement and men's movement

have beenaffectedby the shift in stateideology. As I statedearlier, when liberals within

the movementattemptto work within the statewhile radicalspressdemandsthat cannot be

satisfiedwithin the system,the movementrisks fragmentation. One fragment that emerges

is the liberal countennovement,which continuesto pressfor limited liberal reforms while

also chastisingthe radicalsand expansiveliberalsin the movementthat demandtoo much

or use extremetactics.

Restrictive Liberalism
The stability of the U.S. polity relies upon a processof legitimating authority, and

the ideology of liberal democracyallows stability without the overt use of force. We shift

then from clear submissionto a more murky form of acquiescence,which is defined as

consensus.Intellectuals are important to this processbecause"as traffickers in society's

symbolsand values... and ... as political theoristsand shapersof generalideas

intellectualsare legitimators" (Steinfels 1979: 6).

Steinfels (1979) tracesthe roots of "neoconservative"thought to the Cold War

period. Functionalismwas popular in the 1950s. During this time liberal intellectuals

attackedmasspolitics as anti-intellectualand undemocratic. To do this, however,they

useda particular definition of democracythat hasbecomethe modus operendiof restrictive

29
 liberalism. Steinfelsestablishesfive componentsof this definition, each of which are

founded upon liberal theoriesof society: l) pluralism, 2) consensus,3) objectivity, 4)

statuspolitics, and 5) pragmatism. The overarchingcomponentis pluralism, which sets

out to explain how our systemfunctions to assureliberal valuesof equality and freedom.

Social groupsare said to competein a fashion that will maintain balance,harmony and

social order. Individuals are representedby thesegroupsrather than participating

themselves: "Citizen apathyis rationalized,and any degreeof masscitizen participationis

perceivedas a threat and a precursorof totalitariandemocracy"(Steinfels 1979: 34). The

threatto democracyis presumedto be an idealisticbelief that everyonecan participate

personallywithout representation.The elites and the inequality they represent,

consequently,are not deemedthreatening

The conceptof consensusrelies upon the principles of objectivity and pragmatism.

"The clash of groups" is supposedto have taken "place within a consensusabout the rules

of the game and the fundamentalvalues that sustainedtheserules" (Steinfels 1979: 35).

Anyone who contestedthe proceduresof democracyor the marketswere deemedto be

ideologues. The terminology has beenpopular amongpolitical conunentatorsin the 1980s.

Aides to Reaganand now to Bush are divided into campsof ideologues(in this caseright-

wing) and pragmatists. By declaring an end to ideology, theseintellectualsendorsedthe

liberal center without taking responsibility for this position. Anyone who contestedthe

fundamentalvaluesof societywere labeled"moralists." Of considerablesignificancefor

our discussionof changing boundaries,it was arguedthat "moralism dissolvedthe lines

betweenpublic and private, betweenlaw and morality, that liberalism had establishedin

hope of minimizing conflict over fundamentalbeliefs..." (Steinfels 1979: 36).

The final conceptwas meantto explain the occasionalconflict that did arise. Status

politics was characteized by statusanxiety. Insurgentsstruggle,therefore,not against

oppressionbut againstmodernism. The argumentrelied heavily upon psychological

30
characteristics,and "as a stapleof political argument...,the'new framework' ... turnedout

to be another,slightly more sophisticated,reductionism" (Steinfels 1979: 38).

With black insurgency,the New Left, and women'sliberation, a respectfor law

and a reverencefor expertswas underminedby civil disobedience,rioting, an6 insurgency

in general. Whereasthe "neoconsewative"intellectualshad once arguedthat moralism was

"intolerant of accomodationand ambiguity" (Steinfels 1979: 36), they were now

bemoaningthe loss of "values." While thesevalues were central to conservativethought,

werc not abandoningtheir pragmatism.

the restrictive liberals or "neoconse,rvatives"

Instead,it seemedpragmaticto build a coalition with someof the conservativesto protect

liberal society. As we shall see,thesevaluesdid not challengethe objective or the

pragmatic. Rather,thoseunspokenand supposedlyconsensualvalues were thought to be

the underpinningof liberal stability.

Writes Steinfels: "Neoconseryatives,like most Americans,disapproveof the

unequal treatmentsufferedby racial minorities, women and the poor. But they ... are

strongly opposedto minority separatism,disruption as a meansof dramatizingconditions

and forcing action, and civil disobedienceexceptin very extremecircumstances"[emphasis

addedl (Steinfels 1979: 50). This is the classicdilemma of the liberal, who "quickly and
'extremes"'
self-consciouslyrejectstwo obviousalternativeswhich he [sic] definesas

(Ryan l97l: 27). During the C-oldWar, theseliberals seemedto be alligned with the kft

in their anack on McCarthyism, becausethe libral "cannotside with an openly reactionary,

repressiveposition," which is considered"repugnant"(Ryan l97l:. 27). Then during the

early 1970s,theseliberals seemedto be alignedwith conservatives,becausethe liberals

abandon"the'extreme'solutionof radical socialchange,and ... cannotbring themselves

to attack the systemthat hasbeen so good to them" (Ryan l97l: 27).

In terms of race,Geschwenderalso notesthat "retreatusually takesthe form of

retrenchmentin a new systemof racial exploitation which providesmany of the advantages

of the old systemat lessercost" (Geschwender1977: 2). Resrictive liberals formulate the

3l
terms of the retrenchmentand, in the process,align themselveswith someconservatives.

By the mid to late 1960s,"the issueof an anachronisticregional castesystemwas replaced

by fundamentalquestionsconcerningthe equity of the prevailing distributions of wealth

and power in America" (McAdam 1982: 206). Beginning in 1966there was a "white

backlash"reflectedin a shifting political agenda-This was characterizedby increasing

white majorities for conservativepolitical candidatesand "the effors of electedofficials and

political candidatesto discreditthe shifting patternsof black insurgencycharacteristicof

this period" (McAdam 1982: 2A0. By the 1980sthis white backlashhad becomepart of

the prevailing political ideology of restrictiveliberalism.

Although racial prejudicehasdeclined,efforts to improve the statusof blacks has

fallen upon disfavor. In part this can be attributedto the belief that liberal reforms have

alreadycreatedracial equality: "Polls reveal that an increasingnumberof white Americans

are committed to the conceptand the ideal of integration. Many of them believethat true

equality of opportunity hasbeen attainedas a result of the passageof civil rights laws..."

(Gill 1981: 189-190).As a resultmany U.S. citizensoppose"governmentaland societal

efforts that are thoughtto favor blacks [New York Times, December3,1979, p. 68]" (Gill

1981: 189-190).

In 1984 the Heritage Foundationpreparedan agendafor PresidentReagan'ssecond

term and a summary of his administration'sfirst four years. Prior to Reagan,according to

this report, "judicial battleswere being won by the argumentthat racial justice actually
-- and that the law must favor someracesover others. This
consistsof race-consciousness

momentum, however, has beenhalted by the ReaganAdministration's JusticeDepartrnent.

It hasreturnedto the original vision of color-blind justice" (Butler 1984: 156). There

continuedto be contradictionswithin the state,as officials tried to maintain an image of

liberal equality. Specifically, while the JusticeDepartmentopposed"quotasin any form,"

others in the White House reportedly "soughtto woo minority businessmen[sic]" (Butler

32
 1984: 156).

Steinfelsconcedesthat "it hasnot beeneasyto settleupon a label" for ttrosehe calls

"neoconservatives"(Steinfels 1979: 2). He also recognizesthat "liberalism itself contains

important conservativeelements"and that it is this conservativeaspectof liberalism that

"ne@onsetrvatives
reemphasize"(Steinfels 1979: 3). Steinfelsrejects the use of liberalism,

becausehe rightly believesthat "ne@onservatism"is somehowdifferent from the

expansiveliberalism of the New Frontier and the Great Society. In doing so, however, he

suggeststhat theseviews are new or are removed somehowfrom the liberal tradition rather

than being rooted in a fundamentalcontradictionin our liberal society. They are still

liberals but now in a restrictive phase.

Searchfor a NewCenter
The restrictive liberals hold open the possibiliry of equality but insist that

governmentshould not be expectedto provide equal conditions. Rather,while restrictive

liberals respectraditional valuesand reject the countercultureand radical politics, they

favor equal opportunity. This opportunity, they believe,will be provided by the market

"while preservingindividual freedom" (Steinfels 1979: 5l). According to rhe restrictive

liberals, limits upon equality are not foundedin the physiological or psychological

dominanceof man, nor upon the needto balancewomen's sexualpower as Gilder argues.

Instead,they posit a basicconflict betweenequality and liberty, a concept that was popular

in the nineteenthcentury (Steinfels 1979: 231). Medcalf and Dolbeare(1985) suggestthat

"sometimesfreedom and equality appearto be in direct conflict, so that one or the other

must be given priority" (17). The restrictive liberals tend, then, to stressthe freedom to

compete,which is consistentwith our capitalist systemand tendsto mystify both racial and

genderdomination. They expressa concernthat the call for equality will contribute to a

"levelling" of societythat will endangerttre authority of expertsand the role

of meritocracy,
which are, they believe,essentialto the stability of liberal representativedemocracy.

33
 While the restictive liberals are not fundamentally opposedto the welfare/warfare

state,they blame affirmative action quotas and the programs of the Great Society's war on

poverty for the increasingdemandsand diminishing legitimacy of the state. Resources

availablefor governmentprogramsare viewed as being in competition with industry's

needsfor economic expansion. Further, to restoreconfidencein traditional authority,

greateremphasisis placed upon nationalismand national security. This emphasiscan be

usedto stressthat "we are all Americans" and that dramaticchangesor extremedemands

could be hazardousto our collective well-being. Military obligationsand economic

constraintscan underscorethe argumentthat governmentcannot solve all problems.

"Furthermore,if impossibledemandsdoom a high proportion of governmentprogmms to

failure, the authority of governmentshould be shieldedby dispersingresponsibility for this

failure as much as possible" (Steinfels 1979: 64). This can be managedby shifting

responsibility for many programsto stateand local governmentsand stressingthe role of

the marketin solvingproblems.

Ronald Reagancampaignedin 1980as the flag bearerfor the New Right. Eight

yearslater it was clear that his administrationhad takena decisiveturn toward a restrictive

liberal agenda. Facedwith a Congressthat hascontinued(with a six year lapsein the

Senate)to be controlled by Democratsand with public opinion that was lessthan the

mandatehe claimed, Reaganwas unableto achievemany New Right goals: a human life

amendment,restorationof prayer in schools,elimination of the Departmentof Fducation,

and so forth. This prompted someNew Right activists to criticize Reagan(as they had

Nixon before him) for not living up to his statedconservativeideals.

What Reagandid accomplish,in what might be catled the ReaganReformation,was

to tighten restrictionson welfare and entitlementpayments,reducefunding for many social

progmms,narrow the definition of affirmative action and other programshe personally

opposed,and appoint a host of conservativejudges throughoutthe country (including three

SupremeCourtjusticesand a new chief justice). By emphasizingthe "privatesector,"seH-

34
reliance,color blindness,and strict interpretationsof the Constitution,Reaganhad begun to

again couch inequality as equalcompetition or "equal opportunity" defined in its most

niuTow tenns.

ln Reagan'schosensuccessor,GeorgeBush, the legacy of restrictive liberalism is

nearly complete. While qpeakingof a "kinder and gentlernation" and claiming to hear "the

little people," Bush'smilitaristic policy plans did not deviatemuch from the courseset by

Reagan. Meanwhile, the Democraticcampaignof 1988 setout to reclaim the so-called

"ReaganDemocrats," who were white and mostly male. The gendergap has two faces --

that of conservativewhite men who think the liberal programshave gone too far and that of

blacks and women who are concernedfor their future if thereare not significant changesin

the courseof government. While Michael Dukakis chasedthe former and distancedhimself

from JesseJackson,Bush offerred a bit of soft rhetoric to cut his losseswith the latter.

Bush seemedconfident in the growing solidity of a restrictive liberal centerand

declaredthat Dukakis was "out of the mainstream." While stressingconventionalthemes

of social control and military power, Bush advanceda restrictiveliberal agendamarked by

proposalsto (l) limit abortionsto casesof rape, incest and threatsto the life of the mother

and (2) offer tax credis to families that useday care. At one point, Bush went so far as to

accuseDukakis of being "sexist" for having suggestedthat women had been "forced" into

the labor force.

The NewClass
Restrictive liberals are also concernedabout the "New Class" of professionalswho

occupy their time creatingthe reform strategiesthat have "overloaded"government.

Michael Novak (1976) wrote of the "knowledge industry": "... federal and local

government workers, researchers,lawyers, planners,consultants,educators,information

systemsoperatives,journalists, social workers and others ... dependfor their livelihood on

35
expandingand activist governmentexpenditure(with its attendantcomrptions)." One

might imagine, then, that the rising expectationswere causedby the overzealousness
of this

"new class" of professionalproblem solvers. If this new class,many of whom are women

and minorities, could be disempowered,it might reducethe demandsand the correspondent

diminishment of authority (seeEisenstein1984). "In particular, the neoconseryatives[sic]

have set themselvesagainsttwo weapons,believed to be in the handsof the new class--

sentimentalhumanitarianismand guilt" (Steinfels 1979: 65).

Against sentimentalismthe restrictive liberals argue that one cannot be certain of the

resultsof a program. In fact, they demonstratedthis uncertaintyby claiming that the war

on poverty had failed (or at leastcouldn't be proven to have succeeded).Against guilt they

arguedthat the privileged must be protectedfrom wallowing in the guilt associatedwith

inequality and their privileged positions. Don't feel bad, we are told, becausethere'sa

limit to what we can do. "The attack on guilt ... is part of the wash of psychologizing that

spreadover social theory in the 1940sand 1950s. ... whateverresponsesthe

neoconservative[sic] critic judges to be self-abnegatingor excessiveare interpretedas

'guilt"' (Steinfels
1979: 66). As we shall see,a strikingly similar argumentis usedby the

masculinistmen'smovement.

Restrictive
LiberalWomen
The restrictive liberal women occupy more prominent positionsin the Republican

Party mainstrsrm. Klatch (1987) refers to thesewomen as "laissez-faireconseryatives"to

convey their libertarian roots. "In the laissez-faireconservativeworld view," writes

Klarch, "economicissuestakeprecedenceover socialissues..."(Klatch 1987: 38). While

restrictive liberal women supportwomen'sinvolvement in public life -- in politics and

management-- they are not politically consciousas a genderclass. Rather,thesewomen

tend to identify more with their economicclass. They believe that their statuswill improve

as the generaleconomy improves, so that is their primary focus.

36
 In terms of discrimination,they recognize thatit exists and believe someaction

should be taken. However, individuals are responsiblefor solving such problems.

These
women don't want to get any specialtrearnent that men in their fields don't get. They
tend
to suppoft reproductive freedom but not governmentfunded abortions. Their emphasis
is
on the individual and individual liberties. While they "are closer to feminiss in
their
recognition of sexualdiscrimination,they do not recognizethe institutional
basisfor sexual
inequality nor do they call for collective responsesor governmentaction to remedy

injustice" (Klarch 1987: 53). Klarch notesthat an alliance has not yet beenforged
between
restrictive liberal women and the feminists. With Friedan's"secondstage"
and the "post-
feminist generation,"though, somefeminists are closer to the restrictive liberal
women.

The Liberal Countermovement

Liberalism relies upon individualism. The youth culture (or counterculture)
that
was associatedby many with the New kft attemptedto interpretideas personal
of freedom
in a political context and tendedto disdain the conformiry of the capitalist
enterprise. It is
significant, though, that the counter-cultureseemedto assume"that hedonism
was
inevitably anti-capitalist." Although capitalismwas, in terms of the work
ethic, aptly
associatedwi th "puritanism and deferredgratifications,"

where consumption was concerned,.[capitalism]urged people to gratify

theirslightest
wish. se*itri-'etesslyioitrii".,i-riiliiJ"?I ui,
law andcustom...-It.exploited
whici wasnot to saythat'sexuJ.;d;i#i;d'o-,
were not good things in their own right.- But there was no assurance
that
behavioralliberty would not grow aithe expenseof politicaiitr.lo-.
n
was one ,hil,g,,g th,*,j.ei.promoted mintal healih, anottrerto-say lt
Ty (O'Neil[
advancedsocialjustice. 1975: 329)

The growing acceptanceof humanisticpsychology and the Human potential

Movement heraldedpotential liberation and growth. This emphasison growth

applied to
both sexes,and provided a new form of individualism that was lessrugged
and better
suited to new, more ambiguousgenderboundaries."Once the lid was
off the life cycle, so

37
to speak,anything was possiblefor women as well as men, at least in principle"

@hrenreich1983: 97).
However, somewomen beganto sensethat it was they who were being consumed.

While the sexualrevolution had ttre effect of providing men and women with more sexual

options, it also maintainedmale dominanceand male standards.Evans noted, for instance,

the sensethat men had expectedwornen to be sexually liberated in their terrns: "Men

believed that women would simply adopt their own more promiscuousstandards"(Evans

1979: 153). Marge Piercy (1970) contraststhe stylesof male supremacistsand male

liberals within the New Left. The sexismof the male supremacistswas overt: "The male

supremacisttendsto exploit women new to the Movement or on its fringes. His conceptof

women is conventionally patriarchal: they are for bed, board, babiesand, also, for doing
'
his typing and running his office machinesand doing his tediousresearch"(Piercy 1970:

434). T\e male liberals, on the other hand had a more subtle approachthat invited

acquiescencerather than demanding submission:

The male liberal respectsthe pride of women. He has learned well the
rhetoric of women'sliberation and offers apparentpartnership...He is just
as career-orientedand just as exploitative as the male supremacist,bui he
gives back enoughtidbits of flattery and attentionto makb the relationship
appearreciprocalby contrastwith what goeson with bullier males,and h-e
i;^Q far 1le more fficient long-range co-opter [emphasisadded] (piercy
1970: 435).

Clearly then,pursuing freedom is not sufficient to attain sexualjustice. Kappeler makes

this point by using Sadeto explain the ideological shift from sexualconservatismto sexual

liberalism -- labelled "liberation" (Kappeler 137). Yet, structuralconsmints remain with

this new libeny.

As the structuralboundariesshift, patriarchalprivilege must be maskedin new

ways. Correspondingwith a structuralshift from an industrial basedeconomy to an

increasingly serviceeconomy,the ideology of managementand of patriarchy also shifted.

The model of paternalism,or blatant oppression,hasgiven way to the model of team

38
nurnagement,of "repressivetolerance": Without equality "the conditions of toleranceare
'loaded': they are determinedand defined by the institutionalizedinequality (which is

certainly compatible with constitutionalequality), i.e., by the class structureof society"

(Marcuse1965: 85).

This shift in the ideological legitimation of patriarchy empowers the liberal

countermovementthat wantsreform but criticizes radical demandsas too extreme: "Thus,

within a repressivesociety,even progressivemovementsthreatento trun into their opposite

to the degreeto which they acceptthe rules of the game" (Marcuse 1965: 83). This has

been the position of Friedan'sliberal feminism. It has also beenthe position of the

masculinist men's movement, which promisesmen'srights and men's liberation in the

guise of growth. Like the restrictive liberals, the masculinistsattackradical theoristsfor

succumbingto guilt.

HumanPotential
Movement
Existential philosophy was a precursorto the growing acceptanceof humanistic

psychology. But while the impulse of existentialismwas political and tendedtoward

revolutionary change,humanisticpsychologyhas beenmore optimistic aboutpersonal

change. Rowan (1976) notesthat what becameknown as the T-group had its roots in

researchby social psychologistKurt kwin in 1946. Togetherwith the client-centered

therapydevelopedby Carl Rogersin the late 1940'sand the researchof self-actualizing

gowth by Abraham Maslow, Lewin's work was one of three strandsof humanistic

psychologythat "convergedin the early 1950's"(8).

Michael Murphy, along with fellow StanfordgraduateRichard Price, founded the

EsalenInstitute n 1962in Big Sur, California. The encountergroup, the best-known

human potential activity at Esalen,was designedto respondto the alienationof modern

society. The encountergroup had evolved from the T-group (a.k.a. sensitivity training

39
gtoups) that "had originatedin the NortheasternUnited Statesand had existedprimarily as

a meansof helping administratorsand businessexecutivesbecomemore sensitiveto the

interpersonalaspectsof their jobs and organizations"(Shaffer 1978: 4-5).

According to Shaffer (1978) "two central emphaseswithin humanistictheory" that

deal with alienation are "man's [sic] essentialwholenessand his [sic] unfulfilled potential"

(7). The encountergroup, then, "was expresslydesignedto allow individuals to encounter

aspectsof their being that they had becomedeadenedto; this included encounterswith their

body feelings, with their fellow group participants,and with nature" (7).

Psychologyhad adjustedto changesin the work role of middle classmen and

developedthe notion of growth as a positive aspectof masculinity. ThroughoutThe

Hearts of Men, Ehrenreichrecognizesthe social control function of what is officially

prescribedas healthy and nanrral. Men were declaredweak by Today'sHealthin 1957

when the medical professionbeganwarning that men were disproportionatelysubjectto

heartdisease@hrenreich1983: 70). Yet, "psychologywas not ready to condemn

masculinity as a health hazard,and medicine was not about to indict the corporatesystem

for generatingtoxic levelsof occupationalstress"@hrenreich1983: 8l). The resultwas a

myriad of advice to wives about how to betternuture and panderto their "weak"

husbands.

This did not, however,reflect the experiencesof working and lower class men,

including numy men of color. Patriarchalstyles,then, have varied accordingto race and

economicclass. The centralcharacteristicof traditional masculinity is the perceivedneedto

maintain control. Aggressionand particularly competitivenesscan be part of maintaining

control, so at times (as the leadersof the T-groups recognized)could sensitivity and

cooperation. Ehrenreichalso notesa classinterestinvolved in the concernthat liberal men

have with beitg more sensitive(Ehrenreich 1984). Brod argues,just as Piercy noted

earlier, that the more comfortable liberal exploiter may be the more insidious:

40
 Thus men may appearmore personally congenial farther up the economic
ladder, even as they exercise the institutional power responsible for
women's lower status. In contrast,men who have but their personalpower
are more conspicuousbut actually less efficacious when exercising their
power in patriarchy's service.
(Brod 1987: 15)

FeminineMystique
In 1963 Betty Friedan wrote Tlrc Feminine Mystiquc, which was a liberal feminist

critique that stressedhumanpotential. Both women and men were denied liberty, she

argued,by the narrownessof their sex roles. Accordingly, women's potential had been

restricted by a glorification of femininity. Friedan, then, frames the issueof women's

statusin terms of sex role socializationrather than sexualpolitics: "Friedandoes not see

women's liberation involving a strugglefor power. According to her view men have

nothing to lose and women haveonly to takethe risk" @isenstein1981: 185-186).

In developing her thesisof the feminine mystique,Friedan refers to humanistic

psychologistAbraham Maslow. She failed meanwhileto further the beginningsof a radical

analysisto be found in the writings of Wollstonecraftand Stanton(seeEisenstein1981).

In short, "she tries to smoothover the tensionsbenveenthe liberal stateand feminists rather

than uncoverthem" (Eisenstein1981: 178). While feminism attributeswomen'sunequal

position to their sexualclass(or caste),liberal indidualism attributesinequality to individual

characteristicsor the failure of a social group to competein a supposedlypluralist polity.

BecauseFriedan attemptsto resolvea problem cornmon to women without expoundinga

theory of sexualclass,sheis unableto develop a consistentfeminist theory: "It would

seemthat Friedan should know that women are clearly overeducatedfor their jobs and for

their work in the home. But she still offers individual solutionsas a political one"

(Eisenstein1981: 188).

Friedan and NOW presenteda challengeto the statusquo in 1966when they set out

to provide grcatereconomic opportunitiesfor women. In the years since,though, NOW

4l
hasissueda more radical agenda(althoughstill defined in liberal terms), and Friedan finds

herself adopting a relativety more conservativeargument. In fact, Friedan'sposition is in

many ways nearerto the restrictiveliberal ideology of the state,sincethe statehas accepted

someproceduralaspectsof equality for women that were the initial goals of NOW.

In 1981 Friedan wrote TIU SecondStage. Ehrenreich (1987) calls it "one of the

early signsof lethargy" within the feminist movement(166). Staceyreflects that "Friedan

is one of many disenchantedliberals who retain a progressivistfaith in capitalist

development and individual initiative despitetheir serious loss of confidence in the

prospectsfor, or the efficacy of, federally sponsoredsocial reforms" (Stacey 1983: 568).

Eisenstein(1984) suggeststhat "Friedan and Schlafly have come to sharethe same

enemy,"namelyradicalfeminism(193). And Daniel Bell saysapprovingly,"Although the

NOW movement may have gone too far..., they are pulling back. Betty Friedan

pullback" (Bell 1987: 204).

representsthis'second-stage'

Stacey(1983) has identified Friedan as part of "the new conseryativefeminism" of

which the "central,definitive characteristic... is a repudiationof sexualpolitics..." (561).

Additional distinguishingmarks of this new conservativefeminism are (1) a renewedfocus

on the needsof the middle classnuclearfamily, (2) a glorification of feminine qualities that

are neglectedin the masculinepublic sphere,and (3) the belief that important political goals

have been sacrificeddue to distractioncausedby a "struggleagainstmale domination"

(Stacey1983: 561-562). One distractionaccordingto Friedan'sThe SecondStageis

work againstpornography. Friedan clearly is concernedthat feminism be more relevant to

the needsof the dual careerfamily and that women and men work togetlvr for change.

Stacey(1983)concludes:

The SecondStagerepresentsa liberal's responseto the failure of liberalism

and a feminist'sresponseto the setbacksof feminism... While maintaining
sexualequality as a vague, futuristic goal, Friedan seeksto curtail explicitly
feminist struggles to achieve it, and she collaborates with the
neoconservative[sic] program to dismantlethe welfare state.(564)

42
Masculine
Mystique
Hthe identification with femininity had confined women to the role of housewife,

then masculinity had confined rnen to the roles of protector and provider. The feminine and

masculinemystiques,then were complementaryproblemswith complementarysolutions.

Don Anderson wrote "Warren the SuccessObject" in which he reviews Warren Fa:rell's

The Liberated Man: BeyondMasculinity. SaysAnderson (1975):

Warren Farrell is a contradiction who, like all media stars, both reaches
farther and compromisesmore than others struggling with the sameissues.
...his major thesisis that Women's Liberation is not threateningto men, and
indeed that its main effect is to relieve men of many of the pressuresthey
now experience(e.g. freedom from nagging wives).

Farrell had at one time beenelected to the Board of Directors of the National Onganization

for Women and, in 1971,had formed the NOW Task Force of the Masculine Mystique

(Anderson 1975: 146). In 1975Warren Farrell wrote The Liberated Man. Farrell

concludesthat liberatedmen attain "new freedoms-- freedom beyond proving oneself;

beyondworrying aboutappffimnces..."(313). While women soughtgreateraccessto the

paid labor force, men set out to get in touch with themselves,their partners,and their

children. Men were encouragedto be more emotionally expressive,more affectionate,

more sensitive,and more domestic. Liberated men should get "beyond condescensionand

contempt toward women, needingto be in control...; beyond specializing,needingto

becomethe expeft, being the sole breadwinner,the victim of bribes -- ultimately a security

object" (313).

A year later Herb Goldberg (1976) wrote Tle Hazards of Being Male. Goldberg

is a California psychotherapistwho believesthat men are challengedby the women's

movementto recognizetheir own needfor change. He is critical of men'sliberation

groups,however, for encouragingguilt and self-hatingattitudesand for having "introjected

the voices of their feminist accusers"and fostereda "competition to be the leastcompetitive

and most free of ttre stereotypedversion of male chauvinism" (Goldberg 1976: 5).

43
 At the sametime, however,Goldberg stresseswhat men can gain from changing

roles. Goldberg lists severalimpossible binds that seemto be related to one of two major

conflicts: (1) How can men be devotedto work and to the work ethic and still be a caring

and responsiblepersonat home and at rest?and (2) How can men both maintain a position

of power relative to women and still enjoy the benefitsof sharingin an equal partnership?

He summarizeshis main argumentas follows: "By what perverselogic can the male

continue to imagine himself 'top dog?' Emotionally repressed,out of touch with his body,

alienated and isolated from other men, terrorizedby the fear of failure, afraid to ask for

help, thrown out at a moment'snoticeon the occupationaljunkpile..." (Goldberg 1976:

181).

Astrachanwrites that "When Goldberg speakspublicly, he statesfrankly that he

saysnothing aboutpower in his books because'I'm pretty naive in that area'or'I'm

politically stupid"' (305). Warren Farrell proved to be not much brighter on the subjectof

social power. In the mid-7O'sFarrell was consideredto be a spokesmanfor feminist men,

but he has since aligned himself with the masculinistwing of the men'smovement,which

grew out of Goldberg's ideas. Farrell's most recent book is Why Men Are the Way They

Are. In the introduction he writes: "The more deeplyI understoodwomen'sexperience

of powerlesJness,the more I asswnedmen had the power women did not have. Infact,

what I was understandingwasthefema/e experienceof male power" (Fanell 1986: xvii).

Actually, he seemedto haverediscoveredthe argumentthat Goldberg had madeten ye:rs

earlier, i.e. men and women are equally oppressed.Male liberal feminism is difficult to

maintain without directly facing the contradictionsbetweenliberalism and feminism, and

Farrell seemsunable to do so.

M
 CHAPTERIII
MEN'S MOVEMENTORGANIZATIONS

I have establisheda context for each srand of the men'smovement,paying

particular attention to two aspectsof social rnovementemergenceconveyed by McAdam

(1982): l) socioeconomicprocessesand2) cognitive liberation. I will now describethe

presentorganizationsof the men'smovementprimarily in terms of their ideologies--

values, goals and tactics,as found in organizationalliterature and statementsof purpose

(seeGerlach and Hines 1970: xvii). It should be noted that such a study of organizational

characteristicswill not encompassthe entire breadthof the movement. I am focusing on

organizationsin order to addressthe dynamic of social power. I will rely on such

documentsas newletters,statementsof purpose,and periodicalsto develop an image of

organizationalideology. I will use bnoadstrokesto paint my portrait of the different

strandsof the men's movement.

I initially identified many national organizationsthrough the Encyclopediaof

Associations(1987). In addition to the Encyclopedia,I found current referencesin

"Resourcesfor Change"(compiledby J. Kilbourne, 51 Church St., Boston,MA 02116),

"A History of the Men's Movement"by T.Williamson (1985)and "Men: A Movementof

Their Own" by A.Astrachan (1984). Someadditional organizationalnamesand addresses

were derived from the original contacts. This includes someperiodicalsof the men's

movement.

I am concernedwith the generalhistory of the organizationsand of the movement.

The study, as a cross-sectionof the movement,representssomelimitations in terms of

historical data. Still, much historical information can be derived from existing data.

Kimmel, for instance,utilizes historical data to posit a consistentmale responseto crisesin

genderrelations,consistingof l) the antifeminist backlash,2) the promale backlashand 3)

45
profeminist men (Kimmel 1987 143-153). I refer to the modern men's movement as

consistingof the traditionalists,the masculinistsand the pro-feminists. Table I shows the

organizationsin each segmentof the movement.

to ideologicalfaction.
according
Tablel. Organizations

Pro-Feminisf National Organization for Changing Men

Traditionalis[ Men'sRightsAssociation
NationalOrganizationfor Men

Masculinist: National Congressfor Men

The Coalitionof FreeMen
Men'sRightsInc.

It could well be arguedthat most organizationsin our societydisproportionately

advancethe interestsof men as a group. It is important, therefore,to note that while the

men'smovementmay attemptto advancemen'sperceivedbestinterests,this is not the

movement'sdistinguishing characteristic. For differing reasonsthe membersof the men's

movementbelieve that the existing masculinerole is itself not in the bestinterestsof the

male sex. This includes organizationswith a primary focus on changinghow men function

in such contexts as divorce law, child custody,parenting,work behavior, interpersonal

relations,and male violence. The different segmentsof the men'smovement,then, are

divided (and the pro-feminist group is suMivided) by the level of analysisand the kinds of

issuesaddressed.Table 2 separatesthe segmentsaccordingto this dimension.

Becausethe different strandsof the men'smovementare divided by ideology, their

views of the world are different. With the exceptionof sometraditionalistsand

masculinistsworking on divorce reform the factions rarely work together. Table 3 shows

how different factions of the rnen'smovementrelate to stateideology and patriarchy, which

were discussedin the first two chapten.

46
 Table2. Level of analysisandlevel of involvementin men'sissues.

Personal
Liberalho-Feminists-- personalexpression andalternativeinsdnrtions
Masculinists-- personalexpressionandpottical rightsfor men

Strucnral
RadicalPro-FeminisS-- resistance institutions
!o op'pressive
Traditionalists-- resistanceto lossof power

of men'smovementfactionsto stateideologyandpatriarchy
Table3. Response

Relationto Relationto
Faction FavoredStateIdeology PatriarchalFamily SocialPatriarchy
Pro-Feminist ExpansiveLiberalism Opposition Opposition
Traditionalkt Conservatism Support Support
Masculinist RestrictiveLiberalism Opposition Acreptance

PRO.FEMINIST MEN'S MOVEMENT

The pro-feminist men'smovementhas beendominatedby supportersof liberal

feminism. A smaller group of men espousingradical and socialistfeminism have

organizedthemselveswithin the only national pro-feminist men'sorganization,but they

have met someresistance.In responseto their proposalto eliminate the term "male

positive" from the organization'sstatementof purpose,a lengthy letter in the newsletter

suggestedthat they should "organizethemselvesas a men'sauxiliary to NOW" (brother,

December 1988). Futher, the letter's author queried, "Is the men's movement to be

consideredas full partnerswith the women'smovement,or functionarieswith someone

else'sagenda?"(brother,December1988).

NOCM describesiself as "male-positive,pro-feminist and gay affirmitive." The

statementof purposeelaborateseachof theseaspectsand concludes,in part: "Many people

are oppressedtoday becauseoftheirrace, class,ageandreligion and physicalcondition.

We believe that suchinjusticesare vitally connectedto sexism,with its fundamental

premiseof unequaldistribution of power." This portion of the statementspeaksto the

47
cenm,lity of sexism in the nexusof power relations. However, the organizationhas been

effectively divided benveenliberal profeminist men (who tend to focus more on culture)

and radical and socialist prefeminists (who are !rying to make the organization more

politically active). This dMsion within the National Organizationfor ChangingMen

(NOCM) is similar to ttre division within the feminist women's movement. Clatterbaugh

(1988) makesthis samepoint by saying ttratprofeminist men "get caughtin the same

sectarianbattlesthat afflict feminism" (Clatterbaugh1988: 5). From the beginning the

organization has been limited in its effectivenessbecauseof this division and becausea

strong faction of liberal reformers have preferred to focus on personal liberation at the

expenseof political action.

History of Pro-FeministMen
The Men's Centerin Berkeleywas establishedin 1970(Williamson 1985). Also in

1970Jack Sawyer wrote an article, "On Male Liberation," in Liberationmagazine

(C-R) groupsprior to
(Astrachan1986). Therewere certainlymen'sconsciousness-raising

this time however. Snodgrass(1977) refers to a C-R group that was formed in 1969 in

New York. This group wrote a pamphlet (publishedin 1971) called UnbecomingMen.

Snodgrassnotesthat this pamphletcontained"excellentillustrations of the feelings of self-

aboutpenonal changethat men often experience"when they

degradationand hopelessness

do C-R exercisesto discovertheir sexism(110). He goeson to say that the men of this

group "were all young, white, mostly middle class,heterosexual,movement activists.

They drew togetherout of a senseof isolation accentuatedby the new meaningthat women

found in the enthusiasmand affectionof sisterhood"(110).

Snodgrasswas himself introducedto feminism through a personalrelationshipwith

a feminist woman. Evennrally, he says,he "beganto acceptthe accuracyof the accusation

that [he] was a male supremacist,but felt helplessto do anything about it" (7). He tried C-

R groups with little satisfactionand eventually "helpedform the los Angeles Men's

48
Collective in October 1974" (8). This is probably typical of the early profeminist men's

rnovement. Many of the early participans were undoubtedlypolitical activists.Thiesen

writes, for instance,that membersof the National Organizationfor ChangingMen "have

tendedto cornefrom the feminist movementand the political left" (Thiesen1988: 59).

And probably most of the men in the early C-R groupshad personalrelationshipswith

feminist wornen. According to Fred Small, "The bulk of men in NOCM came to the

movementeither through theirrelationshipswith women who were experiencingthe

feminist revolution or through their own role in the gay community" (Thiesen 1988: 123).

National Organizationfor Changing Men

The first national Men & Masculinity (M&M) Conferencewas organizeAin 1974

"by the Women's StudiesProgramat the University of Tennesseein Knoxville" (Interrante

1982: 5). Subsequentconferenceswere held at PennState,Pennsylvania;Des Moines,

IA; St. [.ouis, MO; Los Angeles, CA; and Milwaukee, WI. A national organizationwas

launchedin Boston, MA, at the seventhM&M Conference(brother, winter 1983). This

organization,which was to becomethe National Organizationfor ChangingMen (NOCM),

is the only national organizationof pro-feminist men in the U.S.

According to the newsletter,the National Council is "the most powerful body of the

organization" (brother, winter 1983). The first National Council memberswere electedin

the spring of 1982,and Bob Brannon was electedto be the National Council chair. When

the nine council membersconvenedtheir first meetingin SanFranciscoon August l2-I4,

1982,the major result was an "agreementon an organizationalstructureproposedby

Pleck, Brannon,Shapiro,and Morgan" (brother,winter 1983). Besidesthe council, the

organizationconsistsof action positions, task groups (and task group leaders),regional

and local groups,and an annual national conference.

There was (and hascontinuedto be) considerablefrustrationregarding the task of

organizing pro-feminist men nationally. In the first issueof NOCM's newsletter,brother,

49
the first chair of the nationalcouncil (Bob Brannon)reflectedthat pro-feminist men "have

always had a compelling practical weakness...We were afraid to get organized,afraid to

have a structtrre,afraid of leadershiproles that might be abused." He went on to say that

"sevenyears and countlessmeetings"after he first joined a C-R goup "two intruders from

New Zealanddisruptedour first major aftemptto start an organization. But other meetings

that had no intruders producedthe sameresult" (brother, winter 1983). Astrachanalso

notesthat "the M&M Conferencehesitatedto move to national organizations..., and they

hesitatedto court media publicity lest they be subjectedto glamorizedmisunderstanding"

(Astrachan1986: 312).

NOCM is made up of volunteerswho do most of the work. Their primary source

of funds is membershipdues. There were no paid staff membersuntil the fall of 1988

when NOCM hired one personand set up an office in Pittsburgh. Prior to that time all

administrativeand liaison duties had beenperformed by holdersof action positions, which

was sometimesan inefficient system. NOCM has about 1000membersnationwide but has

experienceda lot of turnover in membership. In part, this has beendue to a failure to send

renewal notices.

Many of the volunteersbelong to one or more task groups, which focus on various

issuesand can prornote "public statementsand actions." PresentlyNOCM has eleven task

groups and nineteenaction positions. The first issueof Drother descnbr.'i,a task group as

"having its own funds, projects,committees,etc. Task Groups will have considerable

power and autonomy: all detailedpolicy statements,resolutions,political actions,and

other organizationalactivities dealing with the issuesin its jurisdiction shall originate only

from the appropriateTask Group" (brother, winter 1983). Most of the task groups have

their own newslettersto sharcinformation and strategiesfor action, but task groups vary in

their effectivenessdue to the frequently greatdistancebetweenmembers.

NOCM now has two regional groups. The first is C.A.M.P. Caucus,which had

50
met in California for severalyear prior to the formation of NOCM. The secondregional

group is the NortheastMen's Emerging Network (NEMEN). The fint local chapterwas

NOCM-I-A, which was officially addedon January25,1986. At that time the group had

fifty members.Still, local organizing has also been slow and awkward.

In spite of Brannon'sexpectationthat the organizationwould have a "profound

positive effect on this society" in its first five years,problemscontinue to plague NOCM.

In fact, five years later Jon Cohen,of the Activist Men's Caucus,wrote *rat "NOCM, as a

structureand as a vehicle for any kind of social change,is still in its infancy. (It is just

now getting ready to set up a national office)" (The Activist Men's Journal, March 1988).

Internal Conflict
Whenthefirstissueof is quarterly brother,cameoutin thewinterof '
newsletter,
1983,the organization still did not have a name. In choosing an identity, the unresolved

factions within the group clearly emerged. The first issueof brother reponedthat "words

such as 'liberation','feminist',and 'gender'werefelt to be problematicto at least some

potential members" (brother, winter 1983). The membershipwas surveyedto chooseone

of the following three names: The National Organizationfor Men, ChangingMen, and The

National Organizationfor ChangingMen. Fifty-eight percent(58Vo)of the members

respondingchoseto call themselvesThe National Organizationfor Men. However, some

were reportedlydispleasedwith a namethat "seemedto be'bland'and neutral,and didn't

convey anything about [their] values and politics" (brother, summer 1983).

A year later, becauseSidney Siller had alreadyincorporatedhis taditionalist men's

group as the National Organization for Men in New York state,the pro'feminist group

opted to changeits name. Although only one-third of the membership(182 people) voted

on the namechange,there were 104 votes for the National Organizationfor ChangingMen

and 58 votes for the National Organizationof Men Against Sexism. JosephPleck, writing

in brother, noted that there was againcontroversyover the chosenidentity. Pleck argued,

51
 however, that the new name (NOCM) would seem "more accessibleto'mainstream'men"

than would have the other option (brother, surnmer 1984). The liberal reformers,then,

still had grcaterorganizationalstrenglhat this juncture. Accordingly there was a concern

not to turn away men who were ready for somepersonalchangebut weren't ready or

interestedin political action againstsexismand male privilege. Stoltenberg(1977) has

criticized this approach,writing *We needto be clear that we're not talking about a market

strategyfor the men's movement;we're not talking about how to packagethe men's

movementso that we can mn it up the flagpole and all the men in America will salute"

(128).

Ironically, at about the sametime a major pro-feminist publication, M: GentleMen

for Gend'erfusdce, was having name problemsof their own. It was reportedthat the
publication had filed suit againstFairchild Publications,which beganirs own magazine

called M. Accordingto brother, "Fairchild'sM is a lifestyle and advertisingpublication

with an initial circulation of 58,400;its subscribershave a median income of $67,000"

(brother, summer 1984). M: Gentle Menfor GenderJwrice subsequentlychangedits

title to Clnnging Men. This narnechangewas consistentwith that of NOCM -- a focus on

changewithout clarifying what men might becomeor why. With both the organizationand

the publication, moreover,groupsrepresentingtraditional male privilege subsumedgeneric

titles, leaving the pro-feministsto againdefine themselves.They still opted for liberal

tenns.

Pro-MaleCulture
Liberal profeminists have tendedto focus on a supportiveculture for men who are

in transition or who have assumednew role responsibilities. Such issuesas fatherhood,

men and mental health, spirituality, and homophobiafall into this rubric. Liberal feminists

tend to focus on helping individuals adjust to structuralchangesrarher than createthem.

52
They supportfeminist demandsfor legal equality and opposesocial patriarchyin principle,

but they do so by helping men to be more sensitiveand supportiveof women's changes

and demands. As we shall seethis is in many ways similar to the emphasisof masculinist

men, exceptthat liberal pro-feministsaccepta liberal feminist agenda.

Spirituality
Partof ttrerhetoricof liberalprofeminists
focuses a positivemale
ondeveloping
spirituality. Thiesenobservesthat this is "what somemight think of as the human

potential,''New Age'and'touchy-feely'groups within the movement,"and ShepardBliss

refers to this as the "mythopoetic part of the men's movement" (fhiesen 1988: 122). The

work of Robert Bly has beencentral to New Age men who are seekinga more positive

image of themselves. Bly sensesa problem with the emphasison gentlenessto which

many changingmen subscribe,and he is concernedthat young men have becometoo soft.

He argues,for instance,that "young men for various reasonswanted harder women, and

women began to desire softer men. It seemslike a nice arrangement,but it isn't working

out" (Thompson1987: 167). Bly's solutionis to focus on the myth of the Wildman. He

intends for this to be a corrective for men who have becometoo gentle, "but for men who

have neverdone the feminine bit at all, who are umeconstructedmale chauvinists,the

Wildman is simply an invitation to be even more aggressive"(Rowan 1987: 111).

He frames the issueas a denial of masculinity, wounding of the male, and

alienationfrom the father. Radical pro-feministsmight attributethe senseof loss that men

experiencein being "soft" and nurturing to passivity. Personaland political change,they

might add, only occur through action, and the personalcannot be separatedfrom its

political constructs. As Stoltenbergnotes,men can neither be satisfiedwith being more

brotherly nor with passivity (under the pretensethat a lack of action representsa lack of

harm): "The pride to which we aspireis not in being menbut in being men wln... -- men

who are living their lives in a way that will make a difference" (Stoltenberg1987: 129).

53
 Bly, however, is unable to frarne the issue in ttre sameway, becausehis version of

power relationsrelies upon archetypesof traditional sex roles. This New Age philosophy

"believesthat there is a male and female essence"(Clanerbaugh1988: 6). According to

Bly, "the unbalancedpursuit of the Vietnam'War," for instance,was causedby the

expectationsplaced upon men in the 1950sthat "lacked feminine space... lacked some

senseof flow ... lacked compassion..."(Thompson1987: 166). And the hazardin

becoming too soft or too feminine is, as he cites Jung, that a boy "will seehis father

through his mother's eyes" (Thompson 1987: 179). This is similar to the statementthat

Fa:rell made about the male mystique when he "realized" that men don't really have more

power than do women: "In fact, what I was understandingwas thefemale experienceof

male power" (Farrell 1986: xvii).

Clatterbaughnotesthat "this perspectivecan harmonizewith either liberationistor '

men's righs perspectives. Since women have their own inner self, they can neither

describenor fully understandthe male inner self. ... in a more anti-feministtone,women

can be seenas actively preventingmen from discoveringtheir inner man" (Clatterbaugh

1988: 6). Also, as I've statedbefore,this focus on personalchangeand personality

characteristicstendsto detractfrom the more political goalsof radical and socialistpro-

feminist men.

Homophobia

The gay affirmative aspectof the changingmen'smovementis important for several

reasons. Two of theseare that 1) becausegay men do not abide by the heterosexualnorm

of masculinity they are alienatedfrom the dominantculture, and2) men are reluctantto be

physically and emotionally intimate with one anotherfor fear of being labelled a sissyor a

"homo." Theseare deemedheterosexismand homophobiarespectively. Both of these

concernsare relatedto attemptsto transformmen'sidentification with traditional masculine

attitudesand behaviors. The liberal concernsof men'sliberation and a correspondinggay

54
liberation, though, are limited in their challengeto patriarchalrelations. John Stoltenberg

(1977) wrote that "the dilemma of gay men... is how to get cultural confirmation of their

masculinity, how to come out and be one of the guys, how to have full accessto all the

powers, prestige,prerogatives,and privileges that other men have over and against

women" (78-79).

While the concernwith homophobia,then, is important in changing how men can

and do relate to one another,it does not usually addressdirectly men'srelationship to

women in our society. One benefit for women that's usually expressedin having all-male

groups,for instance,is that men will learn to not rely upon women for emotional suppoft.

By iself, though, this is paradoxicalas it may reduce both women's emotional burden and

intellectualinfluence on the goup.

Limitations of Liberal Feminism

In the 1970smost of the media coverageof the men'smovementreferred to the

New Man and focusedon liberal pro-feminist men or the men'sliberation movement.

Newsweekpublishedan article in 1970on the "GentsAuxiliary" (Newsweek1970). A

Ms. article in 1978askedif it was "rhe year of the man" (Tawis 1978). when Jon

Snodgrassedited For Men Agairct Sexismin 1975,many of the authorsexpressed

suspicionsof the early men'sliberationmovement. Wrote Grimstad& Rennie(1975):

Men liberationistsostensiblyaim to freethemselvesfrom beingoppressors.

Women,however,seea very real dangerin mengroupingtogetherbcause
thefocusof their bondingcanso easilyshift to dealingeicluiively with the
side-effects
of beingoppressors ratherthanwith thediseaseitself. (152)

More recentlymostof thepresscoverageattainedby thepro'feministmen'smovementis

aboutthemen'sstudiestaskgroupmembrs,suchasJosephPleckandHarry Brod.

In 1985Harry Brodwroteanarticleentitled"Feminismfor Men: Beyond

Liberalism."In this articlehewrotethat "manymenin our movementtakepridein their

55
moral stancein favor of liberal feminism" (brother, June 1985). He contends,however,

that the only motivations for men to adoptliberal feminism are "altruistic." "Liberalism,"

Brod explains, "ends up supportingthose institutions of power in our society which do the

very damageto the male psychewe're uryingto undo" (brother, June 1985). John

Stoltenberg(1987) explains the processby which this occurs:

... an anti-sexistman'smoral identity might respondto the feminist analysis

of the sex-classsystemby wanting to be an exceptionto it... But then his
sex-classidentity rejects any critique of men as a class,reactseither as if he
is the defender of his whole sex class or as if his spectacularly exemplary
life redeemsit and thus refutes the analysis(128).

By the time a pro-feminist organizationwas formed in 1983,other groups

espousingmen'sliberationand men'srighs had beenlaunchedwith a masculinistagenda.

The relationshipbetweenthe restrictive liberal masculinistsand the profeminists eventually

helped to call attentionto the division within NOCM.

On October24,1982, Michael Kimmel and Jim Creaneattendeda forum at the

New York Centerof Men in order to introduce the formation of the pro-feminist group.

They were "met with 'insights'from a numberof Free Men supporterswho shouted'It's

women who oppressmen!"' (brother,winter 1983). Five yearslater Robert Brannon

wrote of the l2th Men and Masculinity Conferencein Hartford, Connecticut:

...manyof us were shockedto find that sevenAnti-Feminist("Men's

Rights") maleshad beennot only invited to the conference,but given
prominentspotson our program.Oneof them(Hayward)wasevengivena
45 minute block of time at the annualCouncil meetingto discuss'a
coalition'and'howwe canwork together"'(brother,December1987).

ActivistMen'sCaucus
When the conflict over the presenceof the masculinistsensuedat the Hartford

conference,a "progressivemen's caucus" was formed. They began The Activist Men's

Jourral with 4l namesand a common concernaboutNOCM's "lack of political action."

The Activist Men's Caucushasnow beenin existencefor more than a year, and six issues

56
of Thc Activist Men's Journal have beenproduced. Jon Cohen was chosento represent

the Caucuson the NOCM National Council. He first conceivedof his role as a new liaison

position but was offered a "full member" statusinstead. Six men from the Activist Caucus

ran for election to the National Council in 1988. Of thesetwo were elected. In addition,

one member was re-elected.

Issuesthat have beenbrought up in the National Council include consensus

decisionmaking (which was rejectedby a majority vote), a proposalto delete "male-

positive" from the statementof purpose(rejected)or to changethe order of principles so

that "pro-feminist" would appe:trbefore "gay-affirmative" and "male-positive" (rejected),a

proposalto make the liaison position to men'srights organizationsinactive (rejected),and a

proposal to require that workshopsshould only be led by personswho agreewith NOCM

principles (approved). Theseissueswere introducedat the mid-winter meetings,which

were held before the 1988elections.

The Activist Men's Caucusfunctionsboth within and beyondNOCM althoughits

most substantivecontribution thus far has beenin its identification of and communication

betweenradical and socialistpro'feminist men. Recognizingthat NOCM hasbeenlimited

by a divided tradition that includesliberal roots and continuesto be strongly influenced by

reform liberals, the Activist Men's Caucushas pursuedtwo paths. The first is an attempt

to obtain greaterinfluence in the NOCM National Council, to severofficial ties with

masculinist men'sgroups,and to strengthenthe statedpolitical and pro-feminist goals of

the organization. The secondis an attemptto work within certain NOCM task groups

(particularly thoseon portwgraphy, men'sviolence and the new group on child custody)

and within other organizationsworking on peaceor socialjustice concerns.

SexualPolitics
is a concernthatdividesfeminists,andtheprefeminist men's
Pornography

57
 movementreflects this division: "Radicalswould ban or restrict it, while liberals believe it

is protectedby the right of free expression"(clatterbaugh lggg: 5).

The Activist Men's Caucusorganizeda protestat the l3th M & M Conferencein

Seattle' The demonstration that took place at the Champ Arcade was controversial among

Conference attenders. In fact, the editor of brotler cornmentedthat some conference

attendersfelt that the protesters"got what they deserved"when they were macedby a

"passer-by"(brother 7, no. l; December 1988). Even among membersof the

pornographytask group there was a differenceof strategy. Someparticipatedin the

demonstrationas a way to get at a pressurepoint. Othersfelt more comfortablepromoting

such erotica as David Steinberg'sbook, Erotic By Nature.

The chair of the task group on pornographyand one of the organizersof the Champ

Arcade protestwas John Stoltenberg.B. CharlesThiesen(1988),writing in Connecticut-

Magazine,referred to Stoltenberg(who has long worked with Andrea Dworkin) as "a

well-known anti-pomographyactivist and a founder of Men Against pornography."

Thiesen notesalso that Stoltenbergis "pro-censorship"(122). In fact, the demonstration

used a flyer that emphasizedthat pornographersabuseand assaultworkers in the industry,

and demonstratorschantedsuchslogansas "Shut it down!"

Thiesen arguesthat "there is no reasonwhy a pro-eroticism group couldn't exist

within NOCM, even a goup with an anti-censorshipposition. Both thesepositions are

certainly representedwithin NOCM membership"(122). Thiesenmeimsthis as an example

of healthy diversity, but this kind of liberal toleranceand peacefulco-existenceof diverging

positionshas also limited the political effectivenessof the organization. Different positions

co-exist and do their own thing, but the tensionis clearly still there.

The pro-censorshipwing risks providing legitimacy to more powerful

conservativeswho might ban all representationsof nudity and explicit sexuality as obscene.

I addressedthis dilemma earlier in my discussionof how pornographydivides feminists.

On the other hand,the pro-eroticawing risks letting the market determinewhat will be

58
consumed,which meansthat the eroticaproducedwill have to competewith the larger

producersof pornography. But the lack of dialogue createdby separateworkshops,

separateactionsand the distancebetweentask group membersdiscouragesmutual

confrontationon theseissues. As a result the organizationremainssplit without being able

to produce a cohesiveagenda. Such an agendamight addresssuch structuralissuesas the

businessexploitation and cultural degradationof women in much pornography,while also

recognizingpersonalissuesby encouragingand depicting a healthy male sexuality.

"Domestic"
Violence
The pro-feminist faction of the men'smovementis the only one that focuseson

ending men'sviolence toward women. Such affiliated organizationsas Men Against Rape

in Madison,Wisconsin,and RAVEN in St. Louis, Missouri, provide resourcesfor

activists throughout the counury. These goups also work closely with feminist women and

sharea common political agenda.

In November 1977,at the 6th NationalMen & MasculinityConferencein St.

Louis, a group of six men "organizedto confront the issueof male violence against

women" flraflet, "Who Is Raven?"). They establisheda study group that met periodically

for eight months. In September1978they formed RAVEN (Rapeand Violence End

Now). Trained counselorsand peer counselorsvolunteer their time and make decisionsby

consensus.

In 1986RAVEN, along with NOCM's Ending Men's Violence Task Group,

published the lst edition of "The Ending Men's Violence National Referral Directory."

This directory lists 145 groups acrossthe counury. Most of these$oups have programs

for men who batter. Other progams are offerred for men who rape or commit child sexual

assault,for male victims of battering,frp or child sexualassault,and for male "significant

others." In addition several$oups only provide education,researchor networking

services.

59
 Not all of thesegloups considerthemselvesto be part of the men'smovement.

David Adams, in responseto a survey,statedthat EMERGE is "a s@ial action and social

serviceorganizationconcernedwith men'sviolence againstwomen," not part of the men's

movement. EMERGE: A Men's CounselingServiceon Domestic Violence was formed in

Cambridge,Massachusens
in 1977.

The RAYEN group assertsthat violence in the home is not just a problem of

isolatedindividuals, nor can it be explainedentirely by a man'spsychology:

Violence againstwomen is an institution amongmen, only to appearas an

individually-motivated behavior... The expectation that our home lives
must be a perfect refuge from the horrors of public life leads men to blame
women and children for all of their fearsand insecurities.
(RAVEN leaflet)

EMERGE also contendsthat violence againstwomen "is a societallycondonedmethodof .

male dominance"(EMERGE newsletter,December1986),and AMEND (Abusive Men

Exploring New Drections) in Boulder, Colorado, suggeststhat one common characteristic

of an "abusivepartner" is a belief in "traditional male role modelsof the family; e.g. the

man should dominate" (AMEND pamphlet).

Becauseof their belief in a societalexplanationfor patternsof male violence, these

groups stressthe need to work with batteredwomen's shelters. RAVEN has a policy of

not taking grant money that might otherwisego to the shelters. EMERGE notesin their

newsletterthat, through contact with abusedpartnersand "follow-up evaluations",the

woman's safetyremains their "first priority." This is improtant to the feminist community,

as indicated by a book advertisedin the directory: Safetyfor Women: Monitoring

Batterers'Progrcnts (availablefrom the PennsylvaniaCoalition Against Domestic

Violence).

Theseprograms stressthe needfor men to acceptresponsibility for their behavior

as a precondition for change. Among the "common characteristicsof an abusivepartner"

listed by AMEND are an exEemefear of "losing partner", a low senseof self-esteem,

60
 "great difficulty trusting anyone",a belief that "the world is a hostile place where

aggressionis neressaryfor survival", and a tendencyto blame others for his actions. Such

personsmay have "witnessedabusebetweenparents"or beena "victim of abuseas

a
child." The abusivepartner may feel insecureandjealous. Feelingsof pain, fear, guilt

and./ora senseof loss are experiencedas anger,which is expressedthrough violence.

The pro-feminists, following early men'sliberationistslike Jon Sawyer,recognize

that the power that men havein societycan limit their abiliry to be in touch with their

emotional and physical healthand to expresstheir emotions. Men may

feel insecureand
powerlessin their individual lives, and they may feel unable to control their own lives
and
circumstances,but this doesnot mean that men do not disproportionatelybenefit from
their
gender. Furthermore,ending violence in the family requiresan understanding
of class and
genderpower relations as well as the cultural legitimation of violence.

ChildCustody
The pro-feminist Activist Men's Caucushasjust recently begun to focus on
the
problem of child custody and has formed a task group to addressthe issue.
The concern
with custodyis, in part, a responseto efforts by the masculinistmen'smovement(in

conjunction with the Joint CustodyAssociation)to enactlegislationestablishing

mandatory
joint custody.

John Stoltenberg(1987) arguesthat "voluntaryjoint custodyis not the problem,"

but that mandatoryjoint cusrodywould be (Acrivist Men's Journal vl #3 Decfan

lggT_
88). Stoltenbergcites studiesindicating that fathersstill do nor assumeas many
child care
responsibilitiesas do mothers,and he suggeststhat custody is more vigorously
contested
when boy children are involved. "Mandatedjoint custody," writes Stoltenberg,,,intersects

issuesof sexualjustice, sexualviolence,and economicclass." Mandatedjoint

custody,he
further asserts'"has also beenusedto guaranrcethat an abusiveex-husband/father

61
continuesto have court-protectedaccessto the woman and/orchildren he has abused"

(ActivistMen's Journal vl #3 Dec[an 1987-88).

John Straton(1987),NOCM's co-liaisonto feminist women'sgroups,confirms

the dangersof mandatoryjoint custody while alsorecognizing the limitations of sole

custody ("Resourceson the Effecs of Child Custody Laws" Activist Men's Journal vl

#3). Stratonconcludesthat "loyalty to nren cannotcome at" the expenseof "women and

children." He thus recommendsa policy basedupon the "Primary CaretakerParentRule"

of West Virginia (R. Neely, Yalelnw and Policy ReviewIII,168 -- Fall 1984). "Such a

rule," he writes, "reflects that a custody settlementcannot be expectedto undo a father's

lack of participationin parentingwithin the marriagewhile also validating claims to custody

by fatherswho were fully involved within the marriage" (Activist Men's Journal, vl #3

Dec[an 1987/88).

C o n c fu s i o n s
Liberal pro.feminists don't generallyconflict with the activists in what they say as

much as in what they don't say. Radical pro-feminists,for instance,agreethat

homophobiaand heterosexismare a problem; they agreethat consciousness-raising

and

spiritual sustenanceare necessary;and they also recognizethat masculinity, as it has been

naditionally defined, is confining. The radical pro-feminists insist though, that the pro-

feminist men'smovementmust begin by statingits allegianceto feminism and its

determinationto struggleagainstsexism,male domination and male violence. Goode

(1980) notesthat men have never beenas constrainedby the cultural demandsof

masculinity as has beenrecently implied. Rather,one could assertthat men have had

relatively grcaterflexibility than have women to reject role demandswithout losing their

privileged position. Here again the conceptof genderroles is more limited than the more

actively constructedgenderrelations. The liberals tend to focus upon one genderin

isolation as if men could ignore their dominance. In fact, Goode suggests,in what could

62
be a cautionarynote to pro-feminist role theorists,that men seemto react most defensively

to not being as central as we once were.

TRADITIONALISTMEN'S MOVEMENT
While traditionalist men provide a direct challenge to feminist goals, their ideology

is largely inconsistentwith the political and economic strucnres that prevail in the U.S.

today. Although PresidentReaganclearly useda good deal of rhetoric from the

conservative"pro-family" perspective,little of his social agendawas actually adopted. In

fact, even arnonghis own advisorsmuch of the conservativeattack on the welfare statewas

only marginally supportedand generallynot consideredrealistic. Analysts in the press

begandistinguishing betweenideologuesand pragmatistsin the Reaganadminisnation,an!

by the end the pragmatistswere clearly stronger. While in the short term a call for a return

to traditional male authority may rally action,in the long term few peopleacceptthe entire

conservativeagenda. So, for instance,while the ERA was defeatedamidst the perception

that many women opposedfeminism, a 1986Gallup Poll found that only 4 percentof

women in the U.S. identify themselvesas "anti-feminist"(Ehrenreich1987: 168). While

the conservativeposition may provide a focus for debateand act as a vanguardagainst

change,it isn't viable in terms of creatingpolicy.

Historyof DivorceReform
The traditionalist men'smovementfocusesprimarily on the loss of patriarchal

privilege associatedwith the bneakdownof the nuclearfamily. Meanwhile, traditionalist

men criticize liberal reformers for their acceptanceof the diminishing role of the father and

husband. Unlike the masculinist men, traditionalistsdon't talk about personalgrowth

(though they may both talk about men'srights).

In the late 1950san organizationcalled the National Men's lrgion "tried to link

63
feminism to communism and to a decline in American morals" (Williamson 1985: 315). It

seenx, though, that not much is known about the group. More recently the traditionalist

men's movement has its roots in the "men'sdivorce reform movement," whose earliest

group was the Divorce Racket Busters,foundedin 1960and later renamedthe United

StatesDivorce Reform (Williamson 1985: 316). In 1964men from the U.S. Divorce

Reform testified during the Assembly Judiciary Committee hearings on California divorce

law. "Their contention was that the existing law strongly favored women and allowed

them to'take their husbandsto the cleaners'via alimony and property awards[Kay 1977:

2ll" (Weitzman 1985: l7). In 1966the U.S. Divorce Reform "attemptedto get an

initiative for divorce reform on the November 1966Califomia ballot." The proposalfailed

but "would have abolishedalimony and establishedFamily Arbitration centersto deal with

divorce [Y:ay 1977: 41]" (Weitzrnan 1985: l7). While thesedivorce reform organizations

were founded prior to feminism'sre-emergenceas a massmovement,they clearly were

respondingto the samebroad social and economictrendsthat seemedto be undermining

the authority of the father and exploiting instability in the family. So thesedivorce

reformers weren't initially a direct "backlash"againstthe modern movementfor women's

liberationand women'srights. They do suggest,though,that men were getting the raw

end of the deal in divorce, and they joined a broad coalition with liberal reformersto

support groundbreakingchangesin California's divorce law.

Traditionalist Men's Organizations

Men'sRightsAssociation
Two nationalorganizations
thatcanpresentlybeidentifiedasbelongingto a
traditionalistmen'smovementaretheMen'sRightsAssociation(MRA) andTheNational
for Men,Inc.(NOM). The Men'sRighs Association(17854Lyons,Forest
Organization

Lake,MN 55025)wasformedby RichardDoyle in 1973.Doyle remainsthepresidentof

MRA andmakesdecisionsautocraticallv.MRA claimsto haveservedmorethan6000

&
"members" over the past decadeand relies upon $20 membershipfees to supportits work.

Membership numbersseemto be loosely defined as providing somefrnancial supportand

the primary activity seemsto be disseminating information about divorce law and providing

legal referrals. MRA works closely with MEN (Men's Equality Now) International,which

is described as an international coalition. MEN International was also formed by Doyle in

1977.

for Men
NationalOrganization
The National Organizationfor Men (381 Park Avenue South, New York, NY

10016)was foundedin 1983by SidneySiller, columnist for Penthonsemagazine.NOM

has a quarterly newlettercalled The Quest- NOM claims to have 36(X)member

nationally, including 175 in New Jersey. They report organizing chaptersin Florida,

California, Pennsylvani4 Arizona, and the Chicago,Illinois area. While NOM has

chaptersand seeminglya more active membership,Siller remainsthe single central figure.

Like Doyle, he seemsto be a crusader. Maggie Gallagherof the National Review notes

that "by his own account,Siller thought up the men'srights movement more than twenty

yearsago..."(Gallagher1987: 39). In many ways Siller could be consideredmore liberal

than the traditionalistview representedby Doyle. NOM, for instance,criticizes the failure

to draft women, and Siller has associatedhimself with humanism and, of course,the

availability of pornography. Still, NOM stressesthe breakdownof the family as a

fundamentalproblem, and neither NOM nor the masculinistgroups mention working with

eachother. In fac! when I askedFrancis Baumli (a prominent member of the Coalition of

Free Men and editor of a book from a masculinistperspective)about Tle Quest,he wrote

that he hadn't heard of it. One wonders too how much the membershipis involved in

decision making. When Gallagherwent to one of NOM's monthly board meetings,it was

in "a corporateconferenceroom ... not far from Wall Sreet" (Gallagher 1987: 39).

65
 TraditionalValues
The basisof both Doyle's and Siller's organizationsis primarily the defenseof the

patriarchalfamily. Although it seemsthat they also supportmale privilege in general,their

main focus is on legal reforms in the areaof divorce and child custody. Unlike

masculinists,furthermore,they stresspaternalcustody rather thanjoint custody. In terms

of legitimating patriarchalrelations,they tend to be lesseffective than the liberal

masculinists. The traditionalists,like theoristsof the New Right, aren'tcomfortable with

New Deal liberalism and the effects of governmentinterventionin the family. And, unlike

the masculinist,traditionalistsaren'tconcernedwith appeasingliberal feminists by

opposing alimony becauseit's "sexist." Instead,the traditionalists bluntly assertthat

women are screwingthem over and that the nation is becomingmore chaotic without the

clear expressionof natural male authority.

Doyle, for instance,is describedby Williamson as being "a disciple of Charles

Metz" (Williamson 1985: 318). Mez was a memberof the United StatesDivorce Reform,

who in 1968wrote a book entitled Divorce and Custodyfor Men: A Guide and primer

Designcd Exclusively to Help MenWin Just Senlements. Accordingto Williamson,

"Metz believedthat men were to blame for female domination of men. As he saw it, men,

who were in positions of power, were using that power to oppressmen via a perverse

chivalry which tried to win the favorsand approvalof women" (Williamson 1985: 317).

Doyle does,in fact, continue this line of thought.

Doyle claims in a letter to potentialmemben that his organizationis not reactionary

or "anti-women." Rather,he claims that the efforts of male divorce reformers "predatethe

term 'women'slib"'and are aimedat achievingjustice (a conceptalso usedby anti-feminist

women). While the divorce reform movementwas organizedprior to the current

movement for women's liberation, both followed a generaltrend of increasingnumbersof

married women entering the workforce. Concurrentwith this trend was a growing

66
 instability in the instirution of marriageand an increasein divorce (seeKlein 1984).

Justice,accordingto the traditionalist men is to be found in fintly making divorce less

attractiveto women (so as not to underminethe existing family unit) and secondlymaking

divorce less costly to nren (so as not to reward ex-wives). In fact, while they claim not to

be anti-women, they are patently anti-feminist, and both Doyle'sThe Men's Manifesto and

NoM's, The Qucst,cite c.H. ("Max") Freedman's(1985) book, ManrtoodRe&u:

Standing Up to Feminism.

The traditionalists are opposedto most changesin the female role and threatenedby

feminism. A promotional flyer for NOM claims that "the feminiss' growth of power is

designedto denigratemen, exempt women from the draft and to encouragethe

disintegrationof the family." Feminists,then, are believedto be causingthe disintegration

of the family, which is patriarchal. The traditionalistshope to preservethe patriarchal

family.

Divorceand the WelfareState

The traditionalistsare the only faction of the men'smovementthat attacksthe

welfare state. According to traditionalistmen, the patriarchalfamily has beenundermined

becausel) the courts and the rest of governmenthave beentoo chivalrous and 2) the

governmenthasreplacedthe husbandand father as the protector and guardianfor women

and children. As Doyle expressesthe process,women are filing for divorce and the courts

view women as being in needof protection. The courts then give wives large portions of

their husbands'property and custody of the children while requiring the husbandto pay

alimony and child support. This rewards women for seekingdivorce.

In addition to being anti-feminist, Doyle is opposedto rhe welfare state's

intervention into the privacy of the family. He writes that "the socialistphilosophy holds

that government... replace'the man of the family.' Consequentlythe role of the male is

shrinking, as the roles of judges, police, and social servicespersonnelincrease"(Doyle

67
1987: l2). The statehas attemptedto mediatethe conflict benveenpatriarchy and

capitalism. As the patriarchalfamily came under attackin somesegmentsof societyand its

position was compromised,the stateestablishedpolicies that would strengthensocial

patriarchy. The statetried to dictate,for instance,that men should continue to financially

supporttheir ex-wives as a continuationof the family wage. Alimony paymentsand child

support, however, were difficult to enforce. Failing that, the statewould provide limited

subsidiesto female-headedhouseholds.This haseffectively contributedto male privilege

even though the patriarchalfamily hasbeenweakened,especiallyin the middle class. The

traditionalists,though,criticize liberal statepolicies. Doyle assortsthat welfare undermines

the family. As evidencehe cites the findings of the Task Force on the Family, which was

appointedby PresidentReagan.

Siller wrote in 1970regardingalimony: "Women have sought and beengranted

equal rights in the ownership of property, voting and employment opportunities...

thereforethere is no longer any needfor the ancientanachronismof alimony..." (Siller

1970: 2l). Women are able to work in the paid labor force, so they shouldn'trely on their

ex-husbands.This doesnot mean,however,that Siller opposesmen supportingtheir

wives financially while married. He points out that if a woman re-marriesin some states,

she "can be supportedby two husbands,her ex and her present" (Siller 1970: 20). He

suggeststhat this is unfair to the ex-husband.It's also unfair to the ex-husband,though,if

he re-marriesand still has to supporthis ex-wife. Siller writes of men who "had remarried

and discoveredthat they couldn't adequatelysupporttheir new family on the salary that

remainedafter alimony payments" Siller 1970: 20). In fact, the National Organizationfor

Men works with anotherSiller group called the National Committee for SecondWives.

68
PaternalCustody

Your wife can accuseyou of rape at any time during your marriage. That
chargecan lead to your arrest,prosecution,and incarcerationin many of the
fifty states. Your protectionagainstthis conjugal lie is absolutelynil. It's
her word against yours... As the law now standsin some states,a rape
chargecan deprive a husbandof child custody and be used againsthim in a
divorce trial -- even if it turns out that the chargeis false.
Sidney Siller, Penthnuse,
"'Wife Rape'-- Who Really Gets Screwed"

While masculinistgroupsadvocatejoint custody,traditionalistspromote paternal

custody. The traditionalist men'sgroups typically refer to studiesthat stressthe importance

of a strong father figure. Doyle, for instance,lamentsthe loss of paternal authority as the

result of divorce and the threatof divorce. He claims thatjuvenile delinquencyis greater

among children in maternalcustody. Writes Doyle, "What else can we expect from two

generationsof fatherlessyouths? Both men and women are pamperizedin the process"

@oyle 1987: 2). Doyle claimsthat fathersshouldbe given custodyof their children.

While he recognizesthat child care is not traditionally the venueof men, he arguesthat

divorce itself is neither traditional nor moral. Under the circumstances,then, if a child is to

have only one parcnt it is betterto have a father @oyle 1987: 7).

Most of the work of raditionalist men'sgroupscontinuesto be directed toward

divorce reform and child custdy. This includesproviding referrals to attorneysand

counselors. MRA sponsorsan annual demonstrationin New York's Times Squareto

commemorateFather'sDay. Both NOM and MRA also try to promote research. NOM has

establishedthe Institute for the Study of Matrimony Laws as a "researchand education

foundation for the study of the nation's divorce, alimony, custdy and visitation laws."

NOM alsoplansto initiate'the first Men'sLibrary and ResearchCenterand the first Men's

l-egal DefenseFund." MRA researchesthe causesand effects of divorce as well as various

reform strategies.Doyle claims to have evidencethat links juvenile delinquencyand child

abusewith matemal custody. SaysDoyle, "Our researchhas uncoveredsociological

69
studiesin defenseof masculinity," which reportedlyreveal "the duplicity of many laws and

judicial practices"(Doyle, ktter to PotentialMemben).

Unlike the masculinists,traditionalistmen are skepticalofjoint custody

:urangements.Ken Pangborn,the presidentof MEN International (which was founded by

traditionalist Richard Doyle), opposesjoint custody as detractingfathen from seekingsole

custdy. Pangbornarguesthat the successof joint custodycan be attributed to its

voluntary adoption by the parents. It would work less well, however, if it were imposed

by the courts:

Joint custody has an appeal to the obvious senseof fairness in people. But
... it distortsperceptionsof reality. Joint custdy works well when there is
cooperationof both parents,and the children. But it is horrendouswhen
there exists that level of belligerancethat makessuch an agreementdifficult
(201).

Pangbornsuggeststhat "desperateand lazy men" preferjoint custody to seeking

solecustody(201). In anothercontext,though,he writes of illusions that fathersmay

harbor about the easeof having custody. In this vein, he writes: "I have seenmany men

seekinga custody modification who really want their new wives or girlfriends to be baby-
'parent,'
sittersor the and they are not motivatedby a genuinedesireto'be' a custodial

parentthemselves"(154).

"Domestic"
Violence
Doyle discountsthe significanceof violence perpetratedby men againstwomen.

He claims that there is "evidencethereis more batteringof husbandsthan of wives (the

foregoing refen to physical battering;men usually can't hold a candle to women in

psychologicalbattering)"@oyle 1987: 13). The image seemsto be one of a domineering

wife and a henpeckedhusband. How this is resolvedwith the notion of paternal auttrority

is not clear. In any case,Doyle arguesthat "men must ceaseircceptingblame for the

alleged subordinationof women" (Doyle 1987: 15).

70
Viewof MaleTraitors
viewpro-feminist
Theraditionalists andweak.Pro-
menasdeviant,abnormal
feminist men believe that women have beenoppressd that men have beenimbued with

social privilege, and that a more egalitariansocietywould be more just. Thesemen are

viewed as traitors by the traditionalists. In 1986 NOM gave its ftstWIMP Awardto a

judge in Illinois who refusedto glve a convictedrapist a new trial after the victim recanted.

Siller claimed that the judge "was affected by the media attention and the power of the

feminist pressin this country, and refusedto vacatebecauseof the genderissues

involved." Doyle refers to "nominal males (wimps) who have bandedtogetherto denounce

their masculinity,cry a lot, grope at eachother in 'consciousness

raising' sessions,and

celebratethe virtues of homosexuality. A masochistictendencyin their characteris capable

of seeingfault only in malesand manhood"@oyle 1987: 11).

Affirmative Action

Both NOM and MRA opposeaffirmative action policies, which they believe are

designedto promoteundeservingwomen. Doyle writes: "Liberals and enviouswomen ...

have managedto implement far reachinganti-maleprejudicial practices. Genderand

quotas,rather than ability, are the criteria now largely usedto hire and promote employees"

@oyle 1987). The ideology of equal opportunity is acceptedas self-evident.

The traditionalist men seemunableto resolvethemselvesto married women'srole

in the paid labor force. Although Siller seemsto recognizewomen as workers when he

tuguesagainstalimony, he seemsto be speakingonly of single or divorced women. And,

in particular, he is concernedthat young women, who have not committed as much time or

energy to their marriagesor their husbands'careers,should be expectedto support

themselvesafter a divorce. When faced with the issueof women'slower wagesrelative to

men's, Doyle iugues that most women are simply not qualified for work traditionally

performed by men. This contention,of course,ignores historical evidenceto the contrary.

7l
Respondingto attemptsto achievewage parity for women, Doyle claims that men have

greaterwork skills and do more difficult work @oyle 1987: 8).

Conclusions
The traditionalist men'smovementhas lacked a b'road-based
grass-rootsand has

tended to rely upon founding fathers. More importantly, the traditionalist men have failed

to come to terrns with the role of married women in the paid labor force. Their frame of

referenceis the patriarchalnuclearfamily while more U.S. families now have dual income

eiunersor have only a single parent. Furthermoresingle parent householdsare rarely

headedby a man (seePangborn 1985).

Traditionalist antagonismto the welfare stateunderminesthe usefulnessof

traditional rhetoric in today'sstatepolicy agenda.Even Reaganimplementedmuch less

conservativepolicy than he advocated. As Eisensteinpoints out, the welfare statewas

initially conceivedas a meansof resolving conflicts betweenthe need(1) to maintain social

order and thus the generalwelfare and (2) to maintain male and white privilege and the

ability of owners of capital to exploit labor. Neither the New Right, nor the more n,urow

traditionalist men'smovement,can provide the meansto mystify male privilege in a service

economy that requiresmost women (single or married) to work in the paid labor force.

The raditionalist men have beenunableto inspire a majority opinion. Ferguson

and Rogers (1986) note that polls indicate a consistentsupportfor liberal social positions.

Although polls indicatethat a significant minority of married men still subscribeto

traditionalist views, most men are now more egalitarianor more ambivalent (seeBlumstein

& Schwaru and Cherlin & Walters 1981). Blumsteinand Shwartz(1984)note that 34Voof

maried men clearly disagreewith the assertionthat both spousesshould work outsideof

the home (118). Although that number increasesto 64Vowhen small children are present

(Blumstein & Schwartz 1984: 568), Astrachansuggeststhat ttre percentageof men in two-

72
 income families who hold this position is probably lessthan that of men in traditional

nuclear families (which are now a statisticalminority in ttreU.S.) (Astrachan 1983: 202).

Blumstein and Schwartz semto confirm this in a foou:rote.Ninety-one percentof those

husbandswho believe both spousesshould work are from two-income families. By

comparison,78 percentof husbandswho have "neutral or mixed feelings" and 57 percent

of husbandswho believe that women shouldnot work are from two-income families

(Blumstein & Schwartz 1984: 565). As woincome families becomemore prevalent,

ttren,attitudeswill likely becomelesstraditional.

Regardlessof how men and women conceptualize theideal family, there are real

economic demandsthat require most women to work outsideof the home. Says

Astrachan,"Women go to work primarily becausethe economy no longer frs the myth of

the male wage qrner; a family needsmore than one income to live on middle-classterms,'

and many needmore than one just to survive" (198). There are two clear implications to

this reality. The first is that while women are working, their male relativesare likely to

opposediscrimination againstthem. In fact, Blumstein and Schwartz (1934) found that

husbandstendedto be happierwith their marriageswhen their wives were successfulat

work (l6l). This was especiallytnre for men who thoughtboth partnersshouldbe

working. Burris found in his study of supportfor the ERA, moreover, that "the more men

dependupon a secondincome (i.e., the lower their personalincome) and/or the greaterthe

actual contribution of a secondwage-earner(i.e., the higher their spouse'sincome) the

greatertheir suppoft for equal righs for women [footnote removed]" (Burris 1983: 313-

314). The secondimplication is that becauseof structuralchangesand the demandsof the

women'smovement (that have beenwidely acceptedin their liberal form), the ideology of

raditional genderroles tendsto be unacceptableto policy planners. As Green (1981)

suggestedof the conservatives,traditionalist men provide a challengefor the short-termbut

cannot provide the basisfor effective long-term social policy.

73
M A S C U L I N I S TM E N ' S M O V E M E N T
Themasculinists,like
theraditionalists, withmen'srightsand
areconcerned
criticize the pro-feministsfor blaming men for social oppression. Like the restrictive

liberals, masculinistmen warn againstacting out of guilt. Instead,men must createtheir

own agendafor action.

Unlike the traditionalists,though, masculinistmen stressthat men have much to

gain by women'slegal equality. Masculinistsdraw upon the liberal human potential

rnovernent and counter culture in aMicating the role of protecting and providing for women

and insteadassuminga new involvement in fathering. Theseconcernsare similar to the

cultural issuesaddressedby pro-feminist men.

While the masculinistscombine the conservativemen'srights issuesand the liberal

men's liberation, the emphasisis always upon an agendafor men with little concern about'

how it affects women. The feminists presumablywill take care of themselves,and the

masculinistsdon't want the interestsof men to be subsumedby feminism. One prominent

interestof masculinistmen is the right to be active fathers.

Historyof Masculinism
The masculinistmovementbuilds upon a pluralist theory of power to assertthat

men and women have, in the past, had spheresof power and different kinds of oppressive

role constraints. Accordingly, they assert,men's power and women's oppressionwere not

greaterthan -- only different from -- women'spower and men'soppression.They now

speakof equal rights and genderjustice as they work for men'srights in an attempt to

balancethe activities of feminist groups. ln 1970Men's Liberation, Inc., a group of 16

men who had beentrytng to changingalimony laws, "b,roadened

its goals" to "liberating

ourselvesfrom having to prove our masculinity 24 hours a day" (New York Times Oct.

23, 1970,36: 1). They arguedthat "men, no lessthan women, are victims of a fixed set of

rules, basedgenerally on mores,rather than biology," that "relationshipswith women as

74
equalswouldbe morerewarding..."andthat "menwouldbe fredfrom the total
responsibilityfor thefamily'seconomicwell-being"(NewYork TimesOct. 23, L970,36:
1).

Masculinist Organizations
NationalCongressfor Men
for Men(223115thSt.SE,Washington,
TheNationalCongress DC 20003)was
formed in 1981 with JamesCook as its president. John Rosslerof the FathersRighs

Association, Inc. is the curent president. The National Congressfor Men (NCM) is a

coalition that combinesthe Coalition of Free Men, Men's Rights, Inc. and more than a

dozen fathers' rights groups. Its newsletteris called NeIWORK. "As of July 10, 1987,

NCM had 687 duespaying members"representing47 of the 50 states(NeIWORA

Cook estimated,though, that the combinedmembershipof associatedlocal groups was

7000 to 8000 (Astrachan 1986: 309). Astrachannotesthat the National Congressfor Men

was not at all reluctantto seekpresscoverage:

The National Congressdecidedas a matter of courseat its frrst meeting to

set up a nationalorganizationand won CBS, NBC, National Public Radio,
New York Times and Washington Post coverage -- all steps toward
getting a finger on the leversof power, that is, changingthe divorce laws in
as many states as possible. (The New York Times sent a style page
reporter to the opening pressconferenceof NOCM and then refused to run
the story she wrote, on the pretext that the Times doesn't cover embryonic
organizations;nobody thought of that when the Houston correspondentsent
a news story on the first meeting of the National Congressfor Men to the
nationaldeskin 1981.)
(Astrachan 1986: 312-313).

The National Congressfor Men (NCM) has one staff person who doesmany

different tasks. NCM refers fathers who are going through divorce to local fathers groups.

They maintain a directory of such groupsacrossthe country and claim to refer about 150

fathers per month. They also claim that"20Voof the callers ... are women seekinghelp for

their fathers, brothers, sons, uncles, husbandsand lovers" (NeIWORIQ.

75
 in 1981,FredricHaywardsaidthat "theobjectiveof the
At their first conference

NationalCongressfor Men ... is not to fight feminismor roll backits gains,but to extend
sexualequalityto both sexes."The New YorkTimesreported,however,that

although both Mr. Hayward and the conferencegenerally sought to dovetail

its philosophy with that of feminists,the feministsnonethelesscame in for
some hard words. Feminism, Mr. Hayward asserted,is too often sexist
itself. That is, he explained, it insists on a female perspective,is
monopolized by female concerns,and perpetuatesmyths about males -- for
example,that all men are privileged, all are rapists,all are dominant.
(New YorkTimes 1981,B9: 2)

The conferencewas attendedprimarily by divorced men. They arguedthat "men are

sexually discriminatedagainstin employmentsometimes,and in miliury servicealmost all

the time" and that "abortions,performedunilaterally by women, often rample on the

legitimaterights of the fatherto be" (New YorkTirnes 1981,B9: 2). Among the

workshopsoffered at the 1987NCM Conventionare severalaboutcourtroom strategiesfor

divorce settlementsandjoint custodyjudgments,including suchtopicsas "defendingfalse

allegationsof sexualabuse,""defendingparentalaMuction," and "the useof a private

detectivein domestic matters" NeMORK.

The Coalition
of FreeMen
The Coalition of Free Men (PO Box 129,Manhasset,NIY I1030) beganin the fall

of 1980 as the New York chapterof Free Men, Inc. Free Men, Inc. was formed in

December l976by a group of men in Maryland. Free Men has sincebecomeinactive, but

the Coalition of Free Men has gainednationalprominence. The presidentof The Coalition

of Free Men is Tom Williamson and its bimonthly newsletterisTransitiors.

The stationaryof The Coalition of Free Men lists Herb Goldberg, Edward Asner,

Dan Greenbergand Gregory Hines as membersof the Board of Advisors. The

organizationis incorporatedas a "nonprofit (501XC3) educationalorganizationthat looks at

the ways sex discrimination affects men" (Williamson, responseto survey). The only

76
sourceof financial supportare dues and voluntary contributions,and all of the workers are

volunteers. The Board of Directors include the presidengvice president,administrative

vice-president, recording secretary, and treasurer.

According to Williamson, "day to day running of the organizationis [the]

responsibility of the president. Policy decisionsare made by the Board of Directon." The

directors are supposedto be electedas "delegates"from the chapters. Williamson notes,

however, that "chapterformation comesand goes" and that they presently "have a self

perpetuatingBoard" (Williamson, responseto survey). There are "staterepresentatives"in

Colorado,Illinois, Texas,Michigan,Indiana,Oregon,California,
Massachusetts,

Wisconsin, Texas,Arizona, and West Virginia. There are also committeeson feminist

ideology and on men's studies. CFM sponsorsnational conferencesand public meetings,

forms men's suppoft groups, provides a speakersbureau,promotes public awareness,

promotesmen's studiescoursesand provides resources,provides a referral service for men

who are getting a divorce, and doesresearchto find data on men's issues.

Men'sRights,Inc.
In addition to Free Men, Inc., 1977markedthe beginningof Fred Hayward's

Men's Rights, Inc. (PO Box 163180,Sacramento,CA 95816).Fred Hayward is the

founder and director of Men's Rights, Inc. (MR, Inc.) Dr. Barry Sandrewhas been

appointedto direct East CoastOperations. MR, Inc. is a non-profit, tax-exempt

organizationthat relies upon voluntary donationsfrom individuals as its sourceof financial

support. MR,Inc. has no chaptersor local groups. Individuals can becomemembersby

donating a designatedamounteachyear. According to Hayward, they do not solicit

membersand have no intention of becoming "a large, gnss roots political organization"

(Hayward, responseto survey). When askedhow decisionswere made, Hayward

respondedthat people are encouragedto do things and that if someonewants to do

77
something,they do it. MR,Inc. works closely with the Coalition of Free Men and the

National Congressfor Men as well as severallocal groups (Equal Rights for Fathers,

VOCAL & Single Fathers'SupportGroup).

MR,Inc. helps organizationsto form and network and was a founding member of

the National Congressfor Men. They provide referrals and speakers,help researchers,

sponsordemonstrationsand programsfor the community. They produce someliterarure,

attemptto generatepublicity and take legal action. Four legal actionswere cited: 1)

Eliminating sex discrimination in automobileinsurancein Massachusetts,2) successfully

getting "a Massachusetts

regulationbanningl-adies Nights'in bars,"3) providing a legal

argumentat the U.S. SupremeCourt against"all-malemilitary conscription,"and 4)

supportinga suit by the MassachusettsCommissionAgainst Discrimination againsthigher

premiums for men receiving life insurancepolicies.

MR, Inc. createdMR MEDIA WATCH in 1984 "to improve the image of men in

the media." In 1986the projectbeganmaking awardsfor the bestand worst in advertising.

Other projecs are MR ERA and MR PARENTAL LEAVE. "MR, Inc. is dedicatedto

ending sexism in a way that recognizesthe social, psychological,physical, legal, and

economicproblems of men. It seeksto make availableto men the wide rangeof options

that are now availableto women..."(Statementof Purpose).

Father's Rights
JointCustody

... more and more divorced and separatedfathers are being accused(often
falsely) of sexually and physically abusingtheir children to the point where
such allegationsare being madein threeout of ten divorces.
JaneYoung, Transitions
speechat Father'sDay Rally

Both the pro-feminist and traditionalistgroupscriticize the masculinistfocus on

joint custody. Pro-feminist radicalsadvocatea primary caretakerrule, and traditionalists

78
supportpaternalcustdy arrangements.When the National Congressfor Men was formed

in 1980,the masculinist groupsforged an alliance with fathers'rights organizations. The

National Congressfor Men reportedlypublisheda directory in 1985 that lists "more than

one thousand...men'sorganizations"(Williamson 1985: 320).

Father'srights and specifically child custdy have becomea central focus of the

masculinist men'smovenrent. Haddad explained that "the dominant issue of the women's

movement has beenemployment,ttrat spherehas always beenman's domain. The

correspondingdomain for women hasbeenchild-rearing, and that is where men must and

will muscle in on the action" (Haddad 1984: 50). They arguethat, in the interestsof

fairnessand equality, joint custdy legislation should be adoptednationwide. This has

contributedto a conflict with many feminists. theWall StreetJournal in 1986 wrote of

"an increasinglybitter fight with women -- in the nation'scourts and in the statelegislarures

-- over the issueof joint custody of children in divorce cases"(Wall StreetJournal, Aug.

21,'86: 54).

JaneYoung, a member of the FathersRights Association'ssteeringcommittee,

delivered a speechat a Father'sDay Rally in which sheuseda pronouncementfrom the

early NOW to supporther position. In 1966NOW said in its Statementof Purpose:

We reject the current assumptionsthat a man must carry the sole burden of
supporting himself, his wife, and family, and that a woman is automatically
entitled to lifelong support by a man upon her marriage, or that marriage,
home and family are primarily woman's world and responsibility -- hers to
dominate -- his to support.
(NOW SOP, Oct. 29,1966\

For Young and others in the masculinistmen'smovement,NOW's more recent opposition

to joint custody legislation has seemedto be in bad faith. Young claims that "a lot of

women are scared"that "men want to horn in on women'straditional turf, their power

base"(Young, Transitionsv.7 #5, Sept/Oct.1987). John Rossler(NCM's president)and

JaneYoung (NCM's Women's IssuesAdvisor) wrote a letter to 301 editors of newspapers

79
carrying Parade Magazine. They were respondingto an article entitled "Should We Make

It Harder for Men to Walk Out on Wives and Children?" In their letter they advocateno-

fault divorce andjoint custody: "Arrangemens of sharedparentingin the eventof divorce

are philosophically consistentwith early equalrights theory becausethey free both men and

women from strict adherenceto stereotypicalgenderroles" (NeIWORK, v.1, n. 3).

When toward the late 1970'sNOW opposedjoint custody legislation, argued

Williamson, "the women'smovementlooked more and more like just anotherspecial

interestgroup" (322). According to Williamson, Watren Farrell had viewed the early

NOW "as a voice for humanrights" and "expectedfrom them more encouragementfor

males" (322).

Daniel Calvin haswritten an article on joint custdy that Baumli (1985) refers to as

a "classic within the men'smovement" (325). He refers frequently to a book by Roman

and Haddad (1978) called The DisposableParent. Calvin (1985) arguesthat the current

tradition of maternal custody following divorce is damagingto everyoneinvolved: "... our

current arrangementstend to make ex-parentsof fathers,painfully deprivedcreaturesof the

children,and overburdenedpersonsout of the mothers"(188). Calvin then arguesthat

joint custody is the best alternative.

Along the way Calvin observes: "the vast majority of women ... work out of

economic necessity"(186); "men have almostnever agreedon any large scaleto share

responsibility for the home" (187); "divorce decisionsare basedupon the extensionof

assumptionsand values that underlie and supportthe required structureand roles of the
'patriarchy'
American nuclear family" (188); "until the beginning of the twentieth century,

almost exclusively determinedthe legal statusof children [footnote removed]" (l9l);

"industrialization,which split the wage labor of men and the private labor of women, was

behind the exaltationof motherhoodand the maternalinstinct" (L92); and "when joint

custody would not work (where the parentsthemselvessay it will not work), no court in

the land will make it happen"(195).

80
 From just the abovestatements,one would believe that this is a clearly feminist

argument. However, in spite of agreementabout the sexist natureof assumptionsof the

nuclearfamily (upon which public policy is erected),clear conflicts do exist between

masculinist and feminist proposalson child custody. Phyllis Chesler(1986) has wriuen a

book on the subject,entitled Mothers onTrial: The Battlefor Children andCusndy.

According to the Wall StreetJournal,Chesler"arguesthat all too often a father may seek

joint custody ... as a way of 'retaining the marital home and other assetsand as a way of
'86:
monitoring,controlling and harassinghis ex-wife"' (Wall StreetJournal, Aug 21,

54). It's important to note that joint custody "doesnot refer to the living iurangementof the

children" (Salt 1986: 110). Rather,this custodialarrangementeffectsparentalrights

regarding the children

In somedivorces the parentsagreeupon custodialarrangementsand do not contest

this issuein court. In thesecircumstancesmaternalcustody (which Calvin criticizes)

would not be forced. Accordingly, Calvin is primarily concernedwith court directed

custdy judgements.Calvin'sargumentis essentiallythat, when custodyis contested,the

court should give preferenceto joint custodyrather than to maternalcustody. In Calvin's

words "joint custody... needsto be the legislativepresumption"(195).

Calvin goeson to recognizethat this "presumptionin favor ofjoint custody" may

be seenas "coercive." Nevertheless,he asserts,"the current bias in favor of the mother is

alsocoercive"(195). Provisionsof joint custodyincludethe following: the parentsshare

legal custody,which precludesthe notion of "visitation"; "responsibility and decision-

making" are shared;and there is no requirementof "child support" (191).

Alimonyand ChildSupport
Masculinist
men,likethetraditionalists,
oppose
alimonyandchildsupport
requirements.
OnMarch2,1987,JackKammer,
NCMExecutive
Director,testifiedbefore

81
 the Senatesubcommitteeon Social Security& Family Policy chairedby restrictiveliberal

Patrick Moynihan. He told the subcommitteethat alimony was an injustice and that men

often do not pay alimony and child supportbecausethey no longer feel like part of the

family. He explained that men are willing to sacrifice to eam a living for their families but

only if they will reap the rewardsof having that family to come home to. Referring to

Weitzman's (1985) "claim that men's Standardof Living goesup after divorce, Kammer

pointed out that'men voluntarily lower their Standardof Living in order to achievethe love

and affection, the feeling of purposeand connectedness

that only a family can bring"'
(NeIWORK, v. 1, no.2). Later that samemonth Kammer also testified in hearingson the

Family Welfare Reform Act of 1987. RepresentativeHarold Ford of Tennesseepresided

over thesehearings(NeIWORK,v. l, no. 2).

Fredric Hayward, director of Men's Rights Inc., used a similar approachto the

issuein his column on the so-called"deadbeatdad." Hayward explainedthat someof these

men never wanted to be parentsand that men should have the option of non-supportif their

partner refusesto have an abortion. Others,he said, changedtheir minds but, unlike the

mother, didn't have the option of putting the child up for adoption. Othersare denied

custody or "resenttheir second-classstatusas parents." A final group simply can't afford

to make the supportpayments. Hayward sumsup the problem by saying that "once you

rob someoneof the rewardsof parenthood-- the warmth of a family, the continued

experienceof a child's growth, the contributionof one'svalues-- you rob him of his sense

of duty" (Los AngelesTimesII, 5: l).

Free Men
Womenarefreeto pursuecareers,somasculinistmenarenow pursuingtheir own
liberation.As wasdiscussed
earlier,themasculinemystiqueconsistsof beinglimited to
therolesof providerandprotector.Now menareturningto a concernwith theirown

individualgowth. While theyattackthepatriarchalfamily for demandingthathusbands

82
 and fathersact as insensitivepocketbooks,masculinistmen tend to acceptsocial patriarchy.

This follows from their view of powerrelations. Women, acting in their own interest,are

pressingfor greaterequality in the paid labor force. Masculinist men, though, don't want

their agendato be set by the needsof women. Rather, thesemen are concerned to promote

their interestsas emotionally expressiveindividuals and active parents.

Goldberg had suggestedthat male privilege was a myth perpetuatedby men'smore

active style. In other words, masculineaggressivebehavior has a more apparent(but not

more real) impact than doesfeminine passiveaggression.Haddad (1984) builds upon this

idea with a revised theory of male power basedupon the myth of male privilege.

According to Baumli (1985), "Richard Haddad,as one of the founding membersof Free

Men in Columbia, Maryland, and as publisherof American Man, the most important

journal in the men's movement,has been spokenof as the messiahof men's liberation"

(326).

While Haddadrecognizesthat most elite political and economicpositionsare

occupiedby men, he saysthat it "soundstoo silly" to explicitly suggest"a conspiracyof

somemen to govern for the benefit of other men" (Haddad 1984: l4). He also recognizes

that, while the majority of men do not occupy theseelite positions,they do typically earn

more than do women. However, Haddad argues,most men are economically

disempoweredbecause"the power of money is in the spending,not the earning" (Haddad

1984: l4). He seemsto imply, then,that a man'searningpower shouldbe balanced

againsta wife's propensityto spendher husband'smoney. In regardto political power,

Haddadpoints to "mandatedalimony payments"and the social security systemas primarily

benefiting women. Furthermore,he says,"the samelawmakers who frowned on working

women also frowned on vagrantmen..." (Haddad1984: 15).

Pro-feminist men might point out that lawmakersalsorepresentthe interestsof

capital, which is sometimesat odds with the interestsof the male sexualclass. Still, social

patriarchyprovides all men with privileges within society. An individual man may or may

83
not be a male supremacist,but he still enjoys social privilege from being part of the

dominant sexualclass (seeEhrlich ln7>. Brod (1987) notes: "Capitalism increasingly

createsa gap benveeninstitutional and personalpower [footnote removed]. For men, this

createsa disjunction betweenthe facts of public male power and the feelings of men's

private powerlessness"
(13-14). Gersonand Peiss(1985)explain this processin termsof

negotiateddominance:

Domination describesthe systemsof male control and coercion while negotiation

addressesthe processesby which men and women bargain for privileges and
resources.Each group has someassetswhich enableit to cooperatewith or resist
existing social :urangements,although clearly these resourcesand consequent
power are unequal(318).

Liberalism typically maskssocial dominationin a shroudof liberty while allowing an equal

right to bargain.

But Haddad would likely find this explanationunacceptable:"We speak

'The
contemptuouslyof System'as if it were somethingthe governmentor industryor

both have createdand maintain primarily to exploit the citizen-worker. The government

does not run the system. Neither does the corporation. The systemruns both, and we --

men and women -- run the system"(Haddad1985: 288). Haddad'sconceprof power,

then, is patently pluralist. If men have occupiedpositionsof political and economic

decision-making,it's only becausethat has beentheir defined sphereof influence.

Women, meanwhile,have traditionally occupiedthe domesticsphereand, accordingto

Haddad,exercisedpower in that sphere. Becausemothershave beenresponsiblefor child-

rearing, they are central to the socializationprocessand to conveying values to children.

Asks Haddad: "Exactly how important are men in society'sschemeof things if it was not

thought necessaryfor them to be around while we were growing up...?" (Haddad 1984:

l6).

84
"Domestic"
Violence
Unlikepro-feminist women,masculinist
men,whofocusonmaleviolenceagainst
men stressthe male victim. Baumli (1985) includesa sectionon "violence and the male

victim," which is divided into material on batteredand murderedhusbandsand massmedia

portrayalsof men as legitimate victims. Masculinist men frame the issueof "domestic"

violence in pluralist terms. Feminist women, they assert,have fostereda concern with

violence againstwomen. This, furtherrnore,detractsfrom servicesfor men who are vitims

of violence in the home. The traditionalistsexpressa similar concern,althoughone would

suspectthat traditionalist men would attribute the phenomenonto the man'sloss of

authority. For masculinistmen, as for the researchersthey cite, the concernis to

demonstratethat violence in the family is lessan expressionof man'spatriarchalprivilege

than of a culture that encouragesviolent solutionsto conflict. In pluralist politics, further,'

masculinistmen representthe interestsof men.

The masculinists'concernabout family violence is expressedby an insert in the

first 1988issueof Tra nsitions. This was an article from Social Work on battered

husbands,a subjectthat has causeda furor in the social work profession. The article

contendsthat husbandbatteringis as frequent as wife batteringand that wives frequently

falsely accusemen of child abusein order to gain custody. Theseare popular contentions

among the masculinistmen's goups. According to the Wall StreetJournal, the Fathers'

Righs Association of New York (a member group of the National Congressfor Men) "sent

a copy of the article to Gov. Mario Cuomo, along with a letter charging that the state,
'feminist
becauseof discriminatesagainstmen in its domestic-violence
misrepresentations,'

policies" (Wall StreetJournal,May 5, 1988,358: 4).

Critics contendthat "the researchersfailed to considerwhether women are striking

their husbandsmerely in self-defense. 'If you look at a hit or an assaultout of context, it

doesn'ttell you much of anything,' arguesBarbaraHart, an attorney for the Pennsylvania

Coalition Against Domestic Violence." Feminiss seemto be concernedthat a focus on

85
violence againsthusbandswill diminish concernabout wife abuse. According to the

article, Warren Farell, who hasrecently becomeassociatedwith the masculinist men's

movement,also "fears that in the short run the controversialarticle will make men's groups

self-righteousand both sexesmore defensive" (Wall StreetJournal, May 5, 1988, 35E: 4).

SexualPolitics
Haddad also deniesthat men have any advantagein sexualpolitics. He notesthat

men either have a greater sex drive or are at least burdenedwith greater expectationsof

sexualperformance: "Does that not make the male more vulnerablein interpersonal

relationships? Have you ever thought of the male sex drive in terrnsof the power it gives

women?" (Haddad1984: 16). Apparentlythis is the power of rejection-- the "power" to

say no. Jerry Boggs wrote an article called "'Women'sHidden Power" in which he

discussesa study that askedwomen how they get their way and found that they often use

emotionalploys (Transitions,v. 7 #5). D. McDonnell [I, writing of "Sex Harassmenton

'fun'
the Job," arguesthat "a woman can have by danglingthe carrot of willingnessand

watch the men trip over themselves...Yet women continueto clamor that they are

powerlessin the supposedlymale dominatedsociety"(Transitions,v'7#5 SepVOct.

1987). Boggs and McDonnell II try, in this way, to distort the messageof feminism.

Most feminists recognizethat women have somepersonalpower, which they can use to

work for change. This does not, however, dismiss the institutional power and privilege

that men useto maintain their dominanceover women as a sexualclass (and often as

individuals).

In anotherissueof Transitions,Mel Feit tries to establish"A New Defrnition of

Rape." Writes Feit, "She decidesif and when there is going to be a sexualencounter. He

asks. Shedecides. She hasthe power." This, Feit concludes,shouldbe consideredrape

becausedating makesmen "feel belittled, enraged,degraded,dehumanized,humiliated and

powerless"(fransitions v. 8 #1 Jan/Feb1988). RobertTyler expandsthis notion as power

86
derived from sexualpassivity:

The first and quite basic power -- or perhaps more neutrally at this point,
advantage -- of women over men is in the basic biological nature of our
sexual jobs... Women have no necessaryduties to perform in coition...
'perform' quite
Short of clinical vaginissmus, the woman can adequately,
even as she lies on her back and plans her next day's shoppinglist, or her
Board of Directors agenda(fyler 1984: 6).

Theseare the words of a man who proclaims, "I am a liberal, on the right side, a life-long

supporterof feminism. ...I am puzzled,by my generalassentto feminist goals and

ideology and by my completefailure to'feel'its contents"(Tyler 1984: 4-5). This liberal

authorreduceshuman sexualityto coition and then dismissesany coition that is not

performed in the missionarypositon.

Finally, David Morrow reviewed a book that the editor of Trarsitions said had

"considerablemerit." The book is entitled ShyMen, Sexand Castrattng Women(Balls

1985). It describesthe "castratingwoman" as being "callousand manipulative." Sheis

portrayed as victimizing "shy men" and exhibiting suchtraits as "habitual lying, menstrual

problems,claims of previousrape or incest,and ... aversionto breastplay..."

(Transitionsv. 8 #l Jan/Feb1988). Although Morrow believesthat "other,lessviolent

alternativesare more practical and to be preferred,"the book suggeststhat "such women

can be handledwith manipulation,emotionalretaliation,at times a slap upsidethe head,

and often best with forced sex" (Transitions v.8, #l Jan/Feb 1988).

Men'sRights
Men's Rights activists agreewith feminists that sexist languageis a problem, but

they are specifically concernedaboutdisparagingremarks aboutmen. Tom Williamson of

the Coalition of Free Men, for instance,dislikes the terms wimp andmacln: "I don't like

the way wimp makes a judgment. And macho is just anotherway of saying'male

chauvinist pig."' Warren Farrell rebuts argumentsabout the male pronoun associatedwith

87
God by noting that the Devil is also referred to as male, which is unfair to men (New York

Times, January 13, 1986, B52). A specialissue of The Universiry of Dayton Review on

men's studiesis advertisedas including topics such as "anti-male bias in English" and

"institutionalized sexism againstmen" and is availablefrom the chair of CFM's committee

on men'sstudies(Network,v.1, n.2). In fact, "activistsin men'srights organizationsare

entering the fray with talk show appearances

and angy lettersover languageand innuendo

in advertisements,movies, news broadcasts,women's magazinesand television

programming" (New YorkTimes, January13, 1986,B52).

Conclusions
Survey data indicatesthat generalsupportfor genderequality hasincreasedsince

1970. Fergusonand Rogers(1986) note,for instance,that feminism is among "the policy

areasin which the public has shown the sharpestincreasein liberalism sinceWorld War II.

The rate of increaseslowedduring the posrl973 period,but at no time did the public

actually becomenrore conservativeon theseissues"(Ferguson& Rogers 1986: 16).

Writes William J. Gmde, "Throughmen'seyes,at leastttreprinciple of equalityseems

more acceptablethan in the past. Thefuresistanceis not set againstthat abstractidea"

(Goode 1980: 189). And for that reasonthe masculinistscan be more useful to policy

plannersthan other wings of the men's movement. They do not opposeequality and, in

fact, they complain about sexism againstmen and about women'scontinuing dependence.

They do, however, often resist the "consreteapplication" of equality, as Goode calls it.

The rhetoric of men'sliberation and of men'srighs fits in well with a restrictive liberal

agendathat wants a color-blind, gender-blindapproachto equal oppornrnity. It fits in well

with claims of reversediscrimination.

The statehas attemptedto shoreup patriarchalrelationsin severalways, including

(1) statepaternalismthrough family policy and welfare regulationsand (2) a sex segregated

labor force in which women earn less. Surveysindicate that men still have more leverage,

88
do less housework,and expect women to stay home with small children (seee.g.

Blumstein & Schwartz 1983). While traditionaliststatementssupportingthe patriarchal

family are blatant and liable to inspire more supportfor radical feminist goals,opposition to

welfare and affirmative action quotas iue not.

Masculinistshave sufferedsetbacksin their campaignto establisha presumptionof

joint custody in divorce laws (Califomia recently reversedsuch a policy becauseof its

presumedeffect on children passedbetweenconflicting parents). They have, however,

gotten their issueson the public agenda. In the fall of 1983,a retired professoraddressed

the Rotary Club in St. Joseph,Michigan on the subjectof "men -- an endangeredspecies."

He openedby saying that he would "provide somehighly neededrefutation to thosewild-

eyedWomen'sLibbers" (Hampton 1984: 335). And amonghis concludingremarks,he

.
quotesFredericHayward (of Men's Rights,Inc.) as saying,in part, that men "only want to

make it a fairer world for everyone.That includesus!" (Hampton 1984: 339).

In l9T9 Longres and Bailey set out to frnd studiesof men in the social work

journals. They selected52 articlesto review. Of theseonly threedealt with "explicit

conceptualizationsof sexism" (Longres& Bailey 1979: 27). And one of thesewas by a

radical pro-feminist activist, John Stoltenberg. They did find additional articles addressing

male privilege, but "generally,when authorstake note of sex-roleissuesthey do so to point

out how men may be oppressedby norms relating to sex roles" (Ilngres &Bailey 1979:

29). Whether thesestudiesexplicitly supportthe masculinistmen'smovement,they do

provide fodder for their efforts. Further, they note, that only two of the fifty-two articles

"explicitly supportmaintaining traditional norrnsof male behavior" (l,ongres & Bailey

1979: 29).

In 1986 the National Congressfor Men celebnateda small measureof

"congressionalrecognition" when NCM successfullylobbied the House SelectCommittee

on Children, Youth and Families to add "men'sissuesto the list of topics about which it

89
will compile and distribute information" (NeIWORK,v. 1, no. 2).

The "New Man" may, in fact, have becomeassociatedwith a rare, but popularized,

breed -- the YUPPIE. Writes Ehrenreich, "h the insecure 1980's,class lines are being

hastily drawn, and many featuresof the new manhoodcan best be understoodas efforts to

stay on the right side of the line separating... upscalefrom merely middle class"

@hrenreich 1984: 44) As an exampleof this upscaleconcern,Ehrenreichcites the concern

with sensititivity, though sheexpressesa sensethat "it may be largely a verbal

accomplishment"(Ehrenreich 1984: 46\. Sheexplains:

The vocabulary of sensitivity, at least, has become part of the new

masculinepolitesse;certainly no new man would admit to being insensitive
or willfully 'out of touch with his feelings.' Quite possibly, as sensitivity
has spread,it haslost its moorings in the therapeuticexperienceand come to
signify the heightenedreceptivity associatedwith consumerism...
Ehrenreich 1984: 46

Although many pro-feminist men stressthe needfor greatersensitivity, they clearly

are not as likely to be upscaleor, to cite anotherof Ehrenreich'sconcerns,to advocate

irresponsibility or lack of commitment. Astrachan(1988) notesthe different backgrounds

of men who attendconferencesof pro-feminist and masculinistorganizations. The

masculiniststend to come from betterpaid professionaltrades. It is perhapsa touch of

irony, then, that the pro-feminist magazineChanging Men lost rights to its prior niune,

M.,to an upscalejournal for the fashionconsciousman who is not just sensitivebut

sophisticatedas well. Keep in mind, though, what Piercy said about liberal manipulators--

much more effective.

The masculinistsare the most likely strandof the men'smovement to provide the

ideological basisfor rejecting the claims of radical feminists (which are foundedupon

notions of sexualpolitics and a sexualclasssystemrather than liberal legal reform). In

terrnsof the ongoing strugglefor more egalitarianinstitutions, the masculinistspresenta

conrmon senseapproachthat saysmen and women are now equal and both are oppressed.

They agree,then, with restrictive liberal Daniel Bell when he saysthat "the l9CIs helped

90
bring an end to patiarchy" and "although ttre NOW movementmay have gone too far...,

they are pulling back. Betty Friedanrepresentsthis'second-stage'pullback"'

(Bell 1987:

2M). This justifies a renewedemphasison the needsof men, which seemsto come at the

expenseof feminism

Becausemuch of the pro-feminist men'smovement (like the feminist women's

movement)has beendominatedby a liberal ideology, it has beenunableto adequatelymeet

the challengerepresentedby the restrictiveliberals and the masculinistmen.

9T
 CHAPTERIV
CONCLUSIONS

WhereasEhrenreich(1983) tracedhistorical trendsthat createda settingconducive

to the "new man," I have focusedon the political climate and the challengesof the women's

movementto suggestthat someparticular men'smovementorganizationshave a gleater

oppornrnity to effectively shapepublic consciousnessand perhapspolicy. The distinctions

betweenthe ideologiesof pro-feminist, traditionalistand masculinistmen are clear. I have

suggested,though, a connectionthat has beenless clear in previous work, that is the

ideological tradition of the stateand the segmentof the women'smovementthat help shape

each strandof the men'smovement-

Each ideological faction of the men'smovementseemsto have begun with a

personalconcernor set of personalconcerns. Pro-feminist men generally derive an initial

concernfrom theirrelationships with feminist women or the gay community. In

supportingfeminist women, they attemptto critique men'sprivileged position in society

and the destructivenessof their dominancerelative to women. The pro.feminist approach

to power relations, then, tendsto include someanalysisand critique of patriarchy. For

radical and socialist pro-feminists,power is exercisedby an economic and sexualclass.

Liberal pro-feministsmay be lessconcernedwith classpolitics, but are critical of laws that

discriminate againstwomen.

The radical and socialistpro.feministsare politically astute,which is a valuable

resourcefor movementorganizing and action. The political tradition from which they draw

(i.e. - democratic socialism),however, has not beengenerally acceptedin the U.S. political

system. As a result"their political opportunitiesare limited. Liberal pro-feminists draw

from a radition of expansiveliberalism, which hasa declining but establishedposition.

The political oppornrnitiesfor liberal pro-feminists,then, is also limited in the present

92
political climate, though not its severelyas that of the radical and socialistpro-feminists.

The traditionalistsbeganwith a concernabout their marriagesand divorces. They

consideralimony and child supportto be discriminatory toward them, while also

undermining marriage,the family, and their traditional authority as husbandsand fathers.

From this personalinterestthey derive a conservativetheory of genderrelations and power.

Conservatives,while respected,are swimming upstreamin a liberal political system.

Accordingly, the raditionalists have limited political oppornrnitesbecausethey reject some

liberal principles that are central to the statusquo.

Masculinist men also beganwith a concernfor their roles in the family. They have

beenprimarily concernedwith gainingjoint custodyiurangements,being more active

fathers,and being more emotionally expressiveand sensitivepersons. Their emphasison

sensitivity and fathering is similar to that of pro-feminist men, but they sharewith

traditionalists a concernfor men'srights. From this perspectivethey develop a pluralist

view of power relationsthat is consistentwith the ideologyof restrictiveliberals. As a

result masculinistmen have greaterpolitical oppornrnitiesthan do other factionsof the

men'smovement. If they do not realizetheir potential,it may be due to a lack of political

experienceand organizationalresources.

My measuresof movementeffectivenessare not complete. Clearly the masculinist

men'smovementseemsideologically consistentwith the modern phenomenonof restrictive

liberalism and its concernwith limiting the goalsof radical feminists. While the

traditionalistorganizationsclaim a comparablemembershipsize,their measureof

membershipincludes all consumersof services,many of which are for father'srights and

thus are conducive with the masculinists. The traditionalists,furthermore, are clearly

outsideof mainstreampublic opinion. Comparedwith the pro-feminist men, masculinists

not only have a larger membershipbut have also beenmore ambitious and more effective in

seekingcoveragein the massmedia. Table 4 showsthe relative membershipsize of

different men's movement factions.

93
 Table4. Roughestimationof membershipin men'smovementfactions.

Faction Approximate
numberof memben
Pro-Feminist lm0
Traditionalist 9500
lvlasculinist 7500

In terms of specific policy changes,the story is not as clear. While the pro'feminist

men do not seemparticularly effective thus far, feminist women have clearly establisheda

political presence.The masculinistmen, then, are in the precariousposition of speaking

for the interestsof men (which many have felt to be ignored recently) while public support

for liberal feminism remains strong. A more thoroughexaminationof lobbying activity, of

media coverage,and of policy changeswould be in order. This would include a more in

depth observationof severallocal men's groups and activists. I cannot, as well as I would

like, demonsmte the direct effecs of the men'smovement,but this study does suggestthe

importanceof the movementand of the presentconflict benveenmasculinistmen and

feminist women.

94
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abbott, Franklin, ed.

1987.NewMen,NewMinds: breakingmaletradition. Freedom,CA: The
CrossingPress.

Anderson, Don.
1977. "Warrenthe Success
Object"in For MenAgainstSexism,edited
by Jon
Snodgrass.NY: TimesChangepress.
Armstrong, Louise.
1983. TheHomeFront: notesfrom tlrcfamily war zone. Ny: McGraw-Hill
Book Company.

Astrachan, Anthony.
1988.How MenFeel: their responses
to women'sdernands
for eqwlity and
power. NY: Anchorpress.

Baker, Elizabeth Faulkner.

1927. "we NeedMoreKnowledge,"
Independentwoman
11,no. 2 (February:
lI-12+).
B a l ls, C l a u d e .
1985.SftyMen, Sex,and CastratingWomen.Trexlertown,PA: Polemicpress.

Baumli, Francis, ed.

1985-MenFreeingMen: explodingttrcmythof thetraditionalmale. JerseyCity:
New Atlantispress.

Bell, Daniel, et al.

1987."LiberalsandtheCrisisof A_uthority:
newshapes
of Americanpolitics,"
Dissent34, no. 2 (Spring: 202-Zll).
Bernard, Jessie.
1972. TheFutureof Marriaga. Ny: World publishing.
Blauner, Robert.
1972.Racial oppressionin America. Ny: Harper& Row, publishers.
Blumst_eln,Philip and Schwartz, pepper.
1983. AmericanCouples.Ny: pocketBooks.

Bowser, Benjamin P.
1985."RaceRelations in the 1980s:thecaseof theUnitedStates,"Journalof
Black Studies15,no. 3 (March: 307-324).

95
Brod, Harry, ed.
1987. TheMakingof Masculinities:tlu newmen'sstudies.Boston: Allen &
Unwin.
Burris, Val.
1983."WhoOpposed theERA? ananalysisof thesocialbasesof antifeminism,"
SocialScienceQuarterly64,no. 2 (June:305-317).

Butler, Stuart M., Michael Sanera,and W. Bruce Weinrod, eds.

1984. Mandatefor lzadership II: continuingtle conservativerevolution.
Washington,DC: The HeritageFoundation.
Calvin, Daniel A.
1985. "The Optionof JointCustody"rn Men FreeingMen, editedby Francis
Baumli. JerseyCity: New AtlantisPress.

Cherlin, Andrew and Walters, Pamela Barnhouse.

1981. "Trendsin UnitedStatesMen'sandWomen'sSex-RoleAttitudes: 1972to
1978,"AmericanSociologicalReview46,no. (August: 453-4ffi).
C h esl e r, P h yl l i s.
1986.MothersonTrial: tlw battlefor childrenandcustody.NY: McCraw-Hill .
Book Co.

Clatterbaugh, Kenneth.
1988. "MasculinistPerspectives,"
ClungingMen: issaesin gender,sexand
politics,no. 20 (Winter/Spring
1989:4-6).

Craft, Nikki.
1985. "Interview:Nikki Craft,activistandoutlaw,"Off Our Backs15,no. 7
(July l-7).
Doyle, Richard.
1987.TheMen'sManiftsto: a comtnonsenseapproachto genderissues.Forest
Lake, MN: PoorRichard'sPress.

Ehrenreich,Barbara.
1983. TheHeartsof Men: Americandrearnsand tlrcflightfrom commitment.
GardenCity, NY: AnchorBooks.

1984. "A Feminist'sView of the New Man,"NewYorkTimesMagazine.(May

20: 36-41+).

1987. "TheNextWave: thekey to thefeministrenewalis the sub-yuppiefemale

majority,"Ms. (July/August
1987: 166-168+).
Ehrlich, Carol.
197'7."TheReluctantPatriarchs:a reviewof MenandMasculinity"rn For Men
AgainstSexism,editedby JonSnodgrass.NY: TimesChangePress.From
MN, February1975.
96
Eisenstein,Zillah R.
1981.TltcRadicalFutureof Liberal Feminism.NY: Longman,Inc.

t984. FeminismandSexualEEntity: crisisin liberalAnerica. NY: Monthly

ReviewPress.

English, Deidre.
1983. "TheFearThatFeminismWill FreeMen First" in Powersof Desire: tln
politicsof sexwliry, editedby Ann Snitow,ChristineStansell,& Sharon
Thompson.NY: Monthly ReviewPress.

Evans, Sara.
'lg7g.
PersonalPolitics: therootsof women'sliberationin thectvil rights
mavementand the newleft. NY: VintageBooks.

Farrell, Warren.
1975.TheLiberatedMan: beyondmasculinity:freeingmenand their
relationshipswith women.NY: BantamBooks.

1978. "TheE.R.A.is for mentoo!" l71N(December16: 12-13)-

1986. WhyMenAre the WayTheyAre: themale-femaledynamic.NY:

McGraw-Hill Book Company.

Feree, Myra Marx and Hess, Beth B.

1965. Controversyand Coalition: the newfeministmovemenr.Boston: Twayne
Publishers.
Ferguson,Thomas and RogersrJoel.
andthefurureof American
1986.Rig/rtTurn: thedcclineof tle Democrats
politics. NY: Hill & Wang.

Freedman,Carleton H.
1985.ManhoodRedux: standingup tofeminisn, editedby J. Iriman. NY:
SamsonPublishers.

Freeman, Jo.
1975.The Politicsof Women's Liberation: a casestudyof an emergingsocial
movementand itsrelationto thepolicyprocess.NY: l-ongman,Inc.

Friedan, Betty.
1981.TheSecondStage.NY: SummitBooks.

Gallagher, Maggie.
1987. "WhatMen ReallyWant,"NationalReview, no. (May 22: 39-40).

Gerson, Judith M. & Peiss,KathY.

i985. "Boundaries, Negotiation,Consciousness: alizinggender
reconceptu
relations,"SocialProblems32, no.4 (April: 317-331).

97
Geschwender,James A.
1977. Class,Race,and Workr Insurgency:thelzaguc of RevolutionoryBlack
Workers.NY: CambridgeUniversityPress.

Gilder, George F.
The New York TimesBook Co.
1973. SerualSuicide.NY: Quadrangle/

Gill, Gerald R.
1981. TheStateof BlackAmerica. NationalUrbanLeague.

Goldberg, Herb.
1976.TlreHazardsof BeingMale: survivingthemythof masculineprivilege.
NY: TheNew AmericanLibrary.

Goldberg, Steven.
1973. TheInevitabilityof Patriarcfty. NY: Morrow.

Goode, William J.
Dissent2'l, no.2 (Spring:181-193).
1980."Why Men Resist,"

Green, Philip.
1981. ThePursuitof Ineqwliry. NY: PantheonBooks.

Haddad, Richard.
1984."TheMen'sLiberationMovement:A Perspective,"
AmericanMan2,no.3
(Spring: 13-17+).

1985."Concepts andOverviewof theMen'sLiberationMovement"in Men

FreeingMen, editedby FrancisBaumli. JerseyCity: New AtlantisPress.
Hampton, Charles F.
1984. "SoYou Think It's a Man'sWorld: men-- anendangered
species,"
Vital
Speeches50,no. 11 (Marchl5: 335-339).

Herzfeld, Norma Krause.

1960. "The Statusof Women: discriminationagainstwomenstill existsin varying
degreesthroughouttheworld,"CommonwealTl,no. 19 (February5: 515-518).

Interrante, Joe.
1982."DancingAlongthePrecipice:TheMen'sMovementin the 80's,"M..'
gentlemenforgenderjustice,no.9 (Summer-Fall:3-6+).

Kappeler, Susanne.
1986. ThePornographyof Representation.
Minneapolis:Universityof
MinnesotaPress.

98
Kay, Professor Herma Hill.
1977."TheCaliforniaBackground"writtenfor theC-alifornia
DivorceLaw
Research Project,Centerfor theStudyof Law andSociety,Universityof
California-- Berkeley,September1977,unpublished.CitednTlte Divorce
Revolution,editedby lrnore Weitzman.NY: TheFreePress.

Kimmel, Michael S.
1987. "TheContemporary Crisisof Masculinityin HistoricalPerspective"
inThe
Makingof Masculinities,editedby Harry Brod. Boston: Allen & Unwin.
Klatch, RebeccaE.
1987.Womenof theNew Right Philadelphia:TempleUniversityPress.

Kleiman, Carol.
1978. "'Good-Bye,JohnWayne'?threedaysat a men'sconference,"
Ms.(April
45-47+).

Klein, Ethel.
to mnsspolitics. Cambridge,MA:
1984. GenderPolitics: from consciousruss
HarvardUniversityPress.
Longres,John R. and Bailey, Robert H.
1979."Men'sIssuesandSexism:a journalreview,"SocialWork24,no.I
(January:26-32).

Marcuse, Herbert.
1965. "RepressiveTolerance"in A Critiqueof PureToleranceby RobertPaul
Wolff, BarringtonMooreJr., andHerbertMarcuse.Boston: BeaconPress.

McAdam, Doug.
1982.Political Processand theDevelopment
of BlackInsurgency,1930-1970.
Chicago:The Universityof ChicagoPress.
McAllister, Pam.
1988. YouCan'tKiIl the Spirit: storiesof womenand nonviolentaction.
Philadelphia:New SocietyPublishers.
McNeely, R.L. and Robinson-Simpson,Gloria.
1987."TheTruthAboutDomesticViolence:a falselyframedissue,"SocialWork
32, no. (November/December:
485-490).

Medcalf, Linda J. & Dolbeare,Kenneth M.

1985.Neopolitics:Americanpolitical ideasin the1980's.NY: RandomHouse,
Inc.
Metz, Charles V.
1968.Dtvorceand Custodyfor Men: a guideandprinrcr desigredexclusivelyto
helpmenwin jwt settlements.NY: Doubleday& Co. Inc.

99
Morgan, Robin, ed.
1970. Skterhoodis Powerful: an antlnlogy of writingsfrom the women's
liberationmovement.NY: VintageBooks.
Newsweek.
1970. "TheGentsAuxiliary,"Newsweek
(July20: 75-76).

Novak, Michael.
1976. "MakeRmm for FamilyDemocrats,"WashingtonStar,August29,as
quotedin Steinfels.

O'Neill, William L.
1975. "TheCounter-Culture" nThe PrivateSideof AmericanHistory: readings
in everydaylife, eAiteAby ThomasR. Frazier. NY: HarcourtBraceJovanovich,
Inc.
Pearce, Diana.
1978. "TheFeminizationof Poverty: 'Women,Work, andWelfare,"The Urban
andSocialChangeReview11,no. (28-36).

Perkins, Frances.
1927. "Speciallrgislation HelpsWomen,"Independent
Womanll, no.Z
(February:10+).

Piercy, Marge.
1970. "TheGrandCoolieDamn"in Sisterhoodis Powerful,edltedby Robin
Morgan. NY: VintageBooks.
Roman, Mel and Haddad, William.
1978. TheDisposableParent. NY: Holt, Rinehart,andWinston.

Rowan, J.
1976. Ordinary Ecstasy:hwnanisticpsychologyin action. Boston: Routledge
andKeganPaulLtd.

1987. TheHoynedGod: feminismandmenas woundingand tealing. Ny:

Routledge& KeganPaulLtd.
Ryan, William.
1971.BlamingtheVictim. NY: VintageBooks.

Salt, Robert E.
1986. "Thelrgal Rightsof Fathersin theU.S.,"MarriageandFamilyReview9,
nos.3 &4 (Winter1985/1986:101-ll5).

Shaffer, J.B.D.
1978. HwnanisticPsyclnlogy. EnglewoodCliffs, NJ: PrenticeHall, Inc.

100
 Siller, Sidney.
1970. "TheNameof theGameIs Money," Tlw Hurnanrsr
(May[une: 18-21).

Snodgrass,Jon, ed.
1977. For Men Againstsexism. Ny: Timeschangepress.

Stacey,Judith.
1983. "TheNew Conservative
Feminism,"FeministSttdies9, no. 3 (Fall: 559-
s83).
Steinberg, David, ed.
1988. Erotic by Natwe: a celebrationof ltfe, of love,and of our wonderful
bodtes.SanraCruz,CA: RedAlder.

Steinfels, Peter.
1979. TheNeoconservarfves.
Ny: Simon& Schuster.

Stoltenberg, John.
1977. "TowardGenderJustice"in For Men Againstsexism,edited
by Jon
snodgrass.Ny: Timeschangehess. Fromsocial policy(May[unl itr'7s).

1987. "other Men" in NewMen,NewMinds,editedby FranklinAbbott.

Freedom,CA: The Crossingpress.

Tavris, Carol.
1978. "Mediamania:is this'theyearof theman'?"Ms. (April: 51+)

Thiesen, B. Charles.
1988."In Searchof theMen'sMovement
," Connecticut
Magazine(Ianuary:
5 9 +).

Thompson, Keith.
1987."WhatMen ReallyWant: aninterviewwith RobertBly" in NewMen,New
Mtnh, editedby FranklinAbbot. Freedom,cA: The crossingpress.

Tyler, Robert L.
probrem,And ours,"AmericanMan2,no. (spri
]9!4. "My woman 3 ng: 4-
6 +).

Weitzman, Lenore J.
1985. TheDivorceRevolution:theunexpectedsocialand economicconsequences
for womcnand childrenin America. Ny: The Freepress.

101
Wickenden, Dorothy.
1986. "WhatNOW? thewomen'smovementlooksbeyond'equality',"
New
Republic194,no. (May 5: 19-25).

1,02