The Feminization of American Culture ©


Gerald L. Atkinson

Copyright 3 January 2002



       Our vision of whether or not women should be included to fight our future wars, whatever the changing requirements for fighting might be, must include an understanding of the history of the feminist movement in the United States.  Indeed, militant feminism did not begin with Anita Hill/Clarence Thomas.  If we fail to understand this movement, its successes and failures, its motivations and goals, we are doomed to decide the issue in a vacuum.  This book provides a summary account of the feminist movement.  It tailors this history under the illumination of its relationship to the issue of women-in-combat.  Never before have the women of America decided that their place was to be trained as "killers" and to "kill" in the national defense of our country.  The systematic brutalization of a citizen of our society in the process of making him/her a "killer" is discussed at some length in this report.  It has some bearing on whether or not responsible feminism really wants this outcome for the women in our society.


       This report establishes a link between militant feminism and all other egalitarianism activities carried out in the past under the rubric of "individual freedom and equality" in both the American and Ancient Greek experiments with democracy.  We shall see that militant feminism is one of many elements that, in the past, have led to decay, dissolution, and death of democracy.  It will be shown that Betty Friedan's "Feminine Mystique" is nothing more than a human condition (vice female condition) that has, in the past, led males to lives of moral decay and physical dissolution that in turn led to the weakening of the family unit which has always served as the fundamental strength of the nation-state in democratic societies.  Radical militant feminism is an extension of a natural malaise that has invaded every democratic society since the first — a malaise stemming from the abundance and freedoms that are characteristic of the absolute best form of social control, free democratic government.  History has shown that such societies simply decay into chaos resulting from the excesses that derive from the single form of government that optimizes the freedom, performance, and success of the individual.


A Summary of the Feminist Movement in America

       Women have played a major role in American history.  The survival of early American families in taming a wild and hostile land depended a great deal on the talents and energy of American women.  Women led a traditional life based primarily on motherhood and agrarian labor.  The noted feminist historian, Sara M. Evans states that [1] "Most women in the years preceding the American Revolution continued to experience their lives as their mothers and grandmothers had, shaped most powerfully by the constantly recurring cycles of birth and pregnancy and by the arduous physical labor of housewifery."


       These women shared in the 'dawn-to-dusk' physical labor required for survival of the frontier family.  A representative description of this hard life is provided for people who lived in the western Carolina mountains [2].  "Pioneer life in western North Carolina was a daily mixture of hardship and danger.  Families were survival units.  Each member had responsibilities that were clearly prescribed by frontier life.  Few individuals 'dropped out' or suffered nervous breakdowns.  No one had the time.  The work was a constant demand, and the family depended on each member to contribute his own part to the survival of the whole.  Men were responsible for providing shelter, food, and protection.  They plowed the ground and cared for the animals and the major crops.  In addition to the never-ending responsibilities of cooking, cleaning, and sewing, women bore children, cared for the sick, maintained the garden, and literally served as helpmates on hundreds of tasks which men could not do alone.  [Observe that strength and endurance differences between men and women were the major determinants in the division of labor between men and women in these hard times.]  Children's responsibilities were determined by size and sex.  They 'fetched' wood and water and quickly apprenticed themselves to learning the skills of the parent of their sex.  They rarely shirked their duties, for they were made to understand that their efforts were important.  One of the glories of mountain childhood was basking in infrequent praise for having done a 'Man's' or a 'Woman's' work well.  The work began at first light.  No one worried about 'diet meals,' for work consumed the calories, and everyone was ravenously hungry by the next meal.  [After a day crammed with physical work] . . . the adults and the older children gathered around the fire-place in the winter or on the front porch in the summer to relax, tell stories, sing ballads, and plan for the next day.  By nine o'clock, everyone was in bed asleep.


 In most instances, the monotony of frontier work was broken by other forms of work.  Men were more fortunate in this regard, for the seasonal demands of their agricultural pursuits provided a greater variety of responsibilities.  The responsibilities of cooking, cleaning, and caring for the house and children diminished a woman's mobility and lessened the work diversions available to her.  The danger of man's life and the drudgeries of a woman's were inherent in the unspoken survival pact that intensified the love, appreciation, and mutual respect of their marriage relationship."


Early American Feminism

       As America prospered economically after the revolutionary period, the dreary bone-grinding, mind-numbing life of bare survival gave way to a modicum of prosperity for some.  This prosperity led men and women to more 'lofty' pursuits.  With these pursuits, the women's movement began in the United States in the 1820s.  Women participated more and more in educational opportunities. According to Evans [3], "The confidence with which women asserted their moral mission to teach and to engage in social reform outside the home was rooted in their participation in a powerful religious revival known as the second Great Awakening.  This movement reached its apex in the 1820s in towns along upper New York state.  From the beginning, women converted in greater numbers than men, and the theological emphasis of revival preaching increasingly reflected female concerns and attitudes."


       A women's rights movement developed into a full-fledged feminist movement through the 1850s.  Women started to assert their own deeply religious convictions and motivations while rejecting the authority of male-dominated church hierarchies [4].  "In making a claim on public rights, however, they never, despite the fears of their opponents, seriously questioned women's primary responsibility for the home and for children."  Their advocacy was deeply rooted in domestic concerns, that is, with strengthening the family and concern for their children.


       This focus began to change as America transitioned from an agrarian society to an industrial one.  The middle class 'new woman' emerged in this new environment.  Neither men nor women were bound to the hard life of rural America.  This gave a new individuality and freedom to many women in America. A new woman emerged [5] during the period 1890-1920.  " The 1890s marked the ascendance of urban, industrial lifeways over traditional small communities as the defining feature of American society.  Women and men alike worked in larger, taller, and louder factories owned by massive, vertically integrated corporations.  A new managerial class sought to control supply and demand of raw materials, finished goods, and workers and to rationalize the work process, breaking work into ever smaller components with new machines and technologies.  Wives and daughters of the managerial and wealthy classes lived in new suburbs accessible by electric trolley, far from the huge, impoverished, and disease-ridden neighborhoods abandoned to the most recent immigrants.  Severe depression, bloody labor disputes, racist terrorism, and the demise of populism punctuated the 1890s.  Into this urbanizing, industrializing, conflict-filled context came the middle-class 'new woman' and the working-class 'working girl' each of whom enjoyed a measure of individuality and autonomy that frightened many of their contemporaries.  The individuality of the new woman and the working girl marked a shift away from communal domesticity, undermining Victorian culture with a new drive toward autonomy, pleasure, and consumption."  The increase in numbers of independent, educated, unmarried older women punctuated this period [6].  "Perhaps the most striking evidence of change among women was the emergence of the college-educated, frequently unmarried, and self-supporting new woman.  Nearly half of all college-educated women in the late nineteenth century never married.  Those who married did so later than most women and bore fewer children.  For a few years or for a lifetime these independent career women began to create a new life-style.  They moved into growing female professions such as teaching and nursing."


       Women became very active in the total landscape of America's immersion in consumerism and pleasure [7].  "Labor unions, women's clubs, and settlement houses all represented new public spaces for women, arenas in which they could experiment freely with new ideas and actions.  Between 1900 and World War I the old Victorian code which prescribed strict segregation of the sexes in separate spheres crumbled.  The women’s movement reached the apex of its political power, achieving new laws for pure food, protective legislation regulating wages and hours for working women and children, prison and court reforms.  As the twentieth century dawned, women and men alike began to appear in the public places oriented toward pleasure and consumption; dance halls, amusement parks, theaters, and movies drew increasing numbers of Americans out of their homes and into communal activities.  Younger men and women emphasized the sensual, pleasure-seeking dimensions of the new century's culture and brought sexuality out from behind the euphemisms of the nineteenth century.  The second and third generations of college-educated new women maturing after 1900 had both the economic and intellectual resources to seek a new life-style and a new ideology."


       In the first mention [8] in 300 years of American history, the feminist author observes the novelty of lesbian behavior.  Observe that this novelty followed a steady trend of 'free time,' 'relative luxury,' and two to three consecutive generations of 'college-educated' women.  "Modern science and professionalism even shaped the cultural revolt of 'sex radicals,' many of whom had begun to call themselves feminists.  Female bohemians and radical intellectuals mounted an attack on Victorian norms and inhibitions using the scientific language of sexologists and Freudians.  They asserted that an active and expressive female sexuality was 'normal' according to the new science of psychology.  That scientific language also included a new cataloging  of sexual 'perversion' which defined female/female loving relationships as pathological."


       It is noteworthy that feminist authors relegate major historical events as footnotes to the dominant theme of feminism.  History written in the postmodernist mode celebrates female contributions to great events in history and downplays the great events themselves.  For example, World War I (in which 115,000 American males [9] lost their lives and 206,000 were wounded), a feminist author states [10],  "The backdrop to these victories (suffrage efforts directed towards obtaining the vote for women), however, was the brief but intense American participation in World War I from the spring of 1917 until Armistice Day on November 11, 1918."


Feminism's New Independence Interrupted by World War II

       As in later periods of American history, the 1920s focused on youth [11].  In the 1920s, youth was a force in American life as never before.  In high schools and colleges, young people found environments in which they could experiment with new norms and challenge tradition with relative freedom.  After a century of denial, middle-class culture acknowledged the existence of female sexuality, and indeed prescribed sexual pleasure separate from procreative intention."


       America's casual attitude in the pursuit of pleasure was interrupted [12] by World War II.  "The most powerful, immediate effects of the attack on Pearl Harbor and President Roosevelt's call for a Declaration of War were the surge of patriotism and the creation of new jobs.  At the end of the 1930s, 25 percent of American workers remained unemployed, but now suddenly jobs were everywhere."  World War II put an end to the Great Depression.


       Woman contributed in major ways to the winning of World War II.  Single and married women took factory jobs to supplant men who were called to war [13].  "Rosie the Riveter" became a national heroine, gracing magazine covers and ads that emphasized women's civic and patriotic duty to work in the defense industry in no way undermined their traditional femininity.  Labor shortages affected the military as well, and from the outset of the war women's organizations demanded that women be allowed to serve their country.  The result was the creation in 1942 and 1943 of women's branches in the army (WACs), the navy (WAVES), the Coast Guard (SPARS), and the marines (MCWR) in addition to the army and navy nursing corps.  Close to three hundred fifty thousand women served in these various branches and an additional thousand flew commercial and air force transport planes for the Women's Airforce Service Pilots (WASPS)."


       The war provided a cover for a growing number of men and women to pursue homosexual proclivities introduced by the novel pursuit of pleasure by the young of the previous two decades [14].  "Less visible to most Americans, World War II represented a turning point in the birth of a self-conscious homosexual identity among lesbians and gay men.  The slow development of an urban gay subculture in the twenties and thirties had touched the lives of only a few.  On the eve of the war, most homosexuals remained isolated in a hostile culture.  But just as heterosexual women and men found that the war diminished the authority of traditional norms and expectations, so also homosexuals discovered that World War II had 'created a substantially new 'erotic situation' conducive both to the articulation of a homosexual identity and to the more rapid evolution of a gay  subculture.'"


       "For lesbians the war created a dramatically different situation in two ways: First, the women's armed services recruited primarily young, unmarried women providing an all-female environment in which intimate, erotic relationships could grow despite official prohibitions.  Indeed, at the height of the war the army was distinctly uninterested in losing personnel or generating unpleasant publicity.  As a result, 'for a time, many [homosexual] women in the military enjoyed a measure of safety that permitted their sexuality to survive relatively un-harassed.  Second, the fact that women visibly dominated so many public places, whether for work or recreation, provided a new safety for lesbians.  They could meet each other without fearing that their presence in an all-female environment labeled them deviant."  Observe again, in the description above, that in the context of the major obvious contributions of men during World War II (405,000 killed [15], the end of tyrannical evil Naziism, the rising tide of communism), feminist authors neglect the obvious major factors of the war to highlight the fact that feminists took advantage of the war to promote their agenda of liberated sexuality.


       After the war, both men and women yearned for and returned to a tranquility based on the traditional family with motherhood again rising to the top of preferred roles for women, the same attitude that had prevailed more than 100 years earlier [16].  "As men were mustered out of the army, women were mustered out of the factories; both were sent home to resume increasingly privatized lives...There were deep yearnings for security and stability at the end of the war.  As author Betty Friedan put it, "We were all vulnerable, homesick, lonely, frightened.  A pent-up hunger for marriage, home, and children was felt simultaneously by several different generations; a hunger which, in the prosperity of postwar America, everyone could suddenly satisfy...The consequence was the ferocious pursuit of private domesticity."


       Women retreated back to the attitudes of the mid-1880s wherein domesticity reigned.  "Marriage rates and birth rates skyrocketed.  The marriage rate peaked in 1946 at 118 per 1,000 women fifteen years and older compared to 79 per 1,000 women in 1926."


       After World War II and during the early years of the Cold War, "The 'feminine mystique' defined women's place in the postwar family-centered, prosperous, middle-class life-style [17].  It wedded pre-war ideas about the centrality of homemaking and motherhood to more popularized versions of Freudian sexuality to produce a sexualized and modernized version of republican motherhood.  Citizens had become 'private citizens.'  The duty of the modern mother was to create a warm haven, a happy family life, defined in 1954 as 'togetherness.'"


       Betty Friedan discovered a malaise in the midst of women's consciousness during the early years of the Cold War which she labeled the "Feminine Mystique."  It was the problem that has no name [18].  "The problem lay buried, unspoken, for many years in the minds of American women.  It was a strange stirring, a sense of dissatisfaction, a yearning that women suffered in the middle of the twentieth century in the United States.  Each suburban wife struggled with it alone.  As she made the beds, shopped for groceries, matched slipcover material, ate peanut butter sandwiches with her children, chauffeured Cub Scouts and Brownies, lay beside her husband at night, she was afraid to ask even of herself the silent question -- 'Is this all?'"


       "Many women no longer left their homes, except to shop, chauffeur their children, or attend a social engagement with their husbands.  Girls were growing up in America without ever having jobs outside the home.  In the late fifties, a sociological phenomenon was suddenly remarked: a third of American women now worked, but most were no longer young and very few were pursuing careers.  They were married women who held part-time jobs, selling or secretarial, to put their husbands through school, their sons through college, or to help pay the mortgage.  Or they were widows supporting families.  Fewer and fewer women were entering professional work.  The shortages in the nursing, social work, and teaching professions caused crises in almost every American city."


       Betty Friedan was the first to realize that the problem that has no name was shared by countless women in America.  Friedan did not have the historical perspective to recognize it, but this was the same problem that had plagued men in millennia past.  For American women the bounty of a prospering democracy had led to spare time on their hands in the midst of the repetitive, exhausting, mind-numbing tasks associated with ultimate domesticity.  With men, in the millennia of democratic greatness of the Grecian Empire, this extended leisure led to the pursuit of luxury, pleasure, and debauchery.  An emptiness of character, expressed at earlier times by men who did not need to expend all of their energies toward survival in a harsh environment, was now expressed in the 15 years after World War II by Betty Friedan as "I feel empty somehow...incomplete.  I feel as if I didn't exist."  In early Grecian times [19], this 'malaise' was expressed by  "Moral disorder accompanied the growth of luxury and the enlightenment of the mind. . . . As the state religion lost its hold upon the educated classes, the individual freed himself more and more from the old moral restraints — the son from parental authority, the male from marriage, the woman from motherhood, the citizen from political responsibility.  Sexual and political morality continued to decline.  Bachelors and courtesans increased in fashionable co-operation, and free unions gained ground on legal marriage.  The young men spent all their time among flute-girls and courtesans; those who were a little older devoted themselves to gambling and profligacy; and the whole people spent more on public banquets and entertainments than on the provision necessary for the well-being of the state.  The voluntary limitation of the family was the order of the day, whether by contraception, by abortion, or by infanticide."  It is obvious that the "boredom" of a free and luxurious existence left time to contemplate, "Is this all there is to life?"  This is precisely the "feminine mystique," in ancient Greece for men as in the 1960s America for women.


       As with the men of ancient Greece, American housewives of the postwar period were bored with life.  "The problem was dismissed by telling the housewife she doesn't realize how lucky she is — her own boss, no time clock, no junior executive gunning for her job.  Does she still want to be a man?  Doesn't she know yet how lucky she is to be a woman?  As Newsweek put it (March 7, 1960): 'She is dissatisfied with a lot that women of other lands can only dream of.  Her discontent is deep, pervasive, and impervious to the superficial remedies which are offered at every hand...An army of professional explorers have already charted the major sources of trouble...From the beginning of time, the female cycle has defined and confined woman's role."


       Friedan mistakenly believed that the problem did not rest with the fact that American women had luxuries that women in other times and lands never dreamed of.  She obviously did not go far enough back into history.  If she had studied the Greek millennia between 1000 B.C. and the birth of Christ, she would have realized that the same malaise affected the men of the Greek Empire — and it perished because they could not recover from their reaction to the bounty that resulted from their free democracy.  At any rate, Friedan believed [20] that, "...part of the strange newness of the problem is that it cannot be understood in terms of the age-old material problems of man: poverty, sickness, hunger, cold.  It is not caused by lack of material advantages; it may not even be felt by women preoccupied with desperate problems of hunger, poverty or illness.  And women who think it will be solved by more money, a bigger house, a second car, moving to a better suburb, often discover it gets worse."


       Friedan had part of the answer; it can be entirely explained by the problem of plenty.  The history of democratic societies reveals this as mankind's foremost problem.  Friedan actually stumbles over the problem without picking the nugget out of the rubble.  "And strange new problems are being reported in the growing generations of children whose mothers were always there, driving them around, helping them with their homework -- an inability to endure pain or discipline or pursue any self-sustained goal of any sort, a devastating boredom with life."


       Whereas men, when bored with an excess of plenty in their lives, turned to debauchery and frivolous pursuits, women turned inward with a malaise called the 'Feminine Mystique.'  Friedan asked [21] herself whether the problem that has no name was somehow related to the domestic routine of the housewife.  "Is she trapped simply by the enormous demands of her role as modern housewife: wife, mistress, mother, nurse, consumer, cook, chauffeur, etc?  Doctors she interviewed decided that the real problem must be something else -- perhaps boredom."


       It is obvious that the Feminine Mystique is a manifestation of the fact that the modern postwar woman had substituted activities for those previously required for mere survival.  Pre-industrial man and woman did not have energy for these pursuits.  They fell into bed exhausted from survival tasks — all equally as boring as those resulting in the problem that has no name.  The modern postwar woman simply lived in a world far different from her pre-Revolutionary ancestor in which every waking minute of every day for every family member was filled with the routine and difficult tasks necessary for survival in a wild and hostile land.  Her ancestor, as that of her husband, did not suffer from the boredom associated with the 'Feminine Mystique.'  They were too physically exhausted in the struggle to survive!


       Friedan discovered that postwar women reacted to the malaise that affected them in somewhat the same way that men have reacted throughout history to the problem of "too much wealth and too much time on his hands."  That is, women turned to sex as an outlet for their boredom.  She states that [22], "Sex is the only frontier open to women who have always lived within the confines of the feminine mystique.  In the past fifteen years, the sexual frontier has been forced to expand perhaps beyond the limits of possibility, to fill the time available.  The mounting sex-hunger has been documented over the years ad nauseam [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] , by the sociologists and novelists of suburbia, by the mass media, ads, television, movies, and women's magazines that pander to the voracious female appetite for sex phantasy.  It is not an exaggeration to say that several generations of able American women have been successfully reduced to sex creatures, sex-seekers."


       Just as men have observed in previous centuries, this pursuit led to a society in which 'something has evidently gone wrong.'  Friedan states [32] that,  "Instead of fulfilling the promise of infinite orgastic bliss, sex in the America of the feminine mystique is becoming a strangely joyless national compulsion, if not a contemptuous mockery.  The sex-glutted novels become increasingly explicit and increasingly dull; the sex kick of the women's magazines has a sickly sadness; the endless flow of manuals describing new sex techniques hint at an endless lack of excitement.  This sexual boredom is betrayed by the ever-growing size of the Hollywood starlet's breasts, by the sudden emergence of the male phallus as an advertising 'gimmick.'"


       Friedan describes this phenomenon in detail [33].  "In January, 1950, and again in January, 1960, a psychologist studied every reference to sex in American newspapers, magazines, television and radio programs, plays, popular songs, best-selling novels and nonfiction books.  He found an enormous increase in explicit references to sexual desires and expressions (including "nudity, sex organs, scatology, 'obscenity,' lasciviousness and sexual intercourse").  These constituted over fifty percent of the observed references to human sexuality, with "extra-marital coitus" (including "fornication, adultery, sexual promiscuity, prostitution and venereal disease") in second place.  In American media, there were more than 2 and 1/2 times as many references to sex in 1960 as in 1950, an increase from 509 to 1,341 "permissive" sex references in the 200 media studied.  The most striking new sexual phenomenon was the increased and evidently "insatiable" lasciviousness of best-selling novels and periodical fiction, whose audience is primarily women."


       "From 1950 to 1960 the interest of men in the details of intercourse paled before the avidity of women — both as depicted in these media, and as its audience.  Already by 1950 the salacious details of the sex act to be found in men's magazines were outnumbered by those in fiction best-sellers sold mainly to women."


       "...the image of males lusting after women gave way to the new image of women lusting after males.  Exaggerated, perverted extremes of the sex situations seemed to be necessary to excite heroin and audience alike...So, from teen age to late middle age, American women are doomed to spend most of their lives in sexual phantasy."


       Friedan quotes a psychiatrist who states that, "The sexual act [as phantasized and carried out by the women suffering from the 'feminine mystique'] tends to become mechanical and depersonalized, a physical release that leaves the partners even lonelier after the act than before.  The expression of tender sentiment shrivels.  Sex becomes the arena for the struggle for dominance and control."


       Observe that this is an apt description of the reported activities of Tailhook '91 and the investigations/prosecutions that followed.  A generation of young women who were children during the 1960s and who reached adulthood in the mid-1980s were quite well versed in the sexual outlets generated by the 'Feminine Mystique' and its media/activist celebrants.  The stage had been set by the social feminists of Betty Friedan's generation [34].  "As the consumerist ethos and high mobility seriously eroded traditional communal bonds, not only were housewives increasingly isolated, but also some of their middle-class men began to resist domesticity that made too may claims on them as providers.  They preferred consumerism not tied to families, an ethic of pleasure without responsibility articulated by editor Hugh Hefner as the 'Playboy philosophy.'"

       This is precisely the situation that affected well-to-do Greek men just before the collapse of 1,000 years of Greek democracy [35].  "Only an act of persistent imagination, or a gift from observation, can enable us to realize what it means to a nation to have its traditional religion die.  Classic Greek civilization had been built upon a patriotic devotion to the city-state, and classic morality, though rooted in folkways rather than in faith, had been powerfully reinforced by supernatural belief.  But neither faith nor patriotism survived in the educated Greek; civic frontiers had been erased by empires; and the growth of knowledge had secularized morals, marriage, parentage, and law.  The pursuit of pleasure consumed the adult life of the upper classes.  The old problem of ethics and morals — to reconcile the natural epicureanism of the individual with the necessary stoicism of the state -- found no solution in religion, statesmanship, or philosophy.  Education spread, but spread thin; as in all intellectual ages it stressed knowledge more than character, and produced masses of half-educated people who, uprooted from labor and the land, moved about in unplaced discontent like loosened cargo in the ship of state.  Sexual morality was relaxed even beyond the loose standards of the Periclean age.  Homosexualism remained popular.  Dances of naked women were accepted as part of the mores.  Athenean life was portrayed in Menander's plays as a round of triviality, seduction, and adultery.


       Greek women participated actively in the cultural pursuits of the time, and contributed to letters, science, philosophy, and art.  Some philosophers, like Epicurus, did not hesitate to admit women into their schools.  Literature began to stress the physical loveliness of woman rather than her worth and charm as a mother; the literary cult of feminine beauty arose in this period alongside the poetry and fiction of romantic love.  The partial emancipation of woman was accompanied by a revolt against wholesale maternity, and the limitation of the family became the outstanding social phenomenon of the age.  Abortion was punishable only if practiced by a woman against the wish of her husband, or at the instigation of her seducer.  When a child came it was in many cases exposed.  We may judge how widespread the practice of limitation had become.  Polybius wrote, about 150 B.C.,


'The whole of Greece has been subject to a low birth rate and a general decrease of the population, owing to which cities have become deserted and the land has ceased to yield fruit . . . For as men had fallen into such a state of luxury, avarice, and indolence that they did not wish to marry, or, if they married, to rear the children born to them, or at most but one or two of them, so as to leave those in affluence and bring them up to waste their substance — the evil insensibly but rapidly grew.'"


       The point being made here is that the "feminine mystique" which is the cornerstone of the reawakening of the feminist movement in the United States is nothing more than the feeling of "Is this all there is to life?" which was displayed by males in ancient Greece during its Golden Age of democracy.  It is the same feeling of boredom born of luxury and economic excess and extravagance in an age wherein the barbarian was simply waiting for the strong soldier-citizen of Greece to decay morally into weakness.  The Greek empire fell suddenly and absolutely in a very short period of time.  The creeping weakness from within generated the cracks in the Greek civilization which led to its swift demise.  The "feminine mystique" is not a gender-specific malaise.  It has occurred in past history.  It occurred to the male populationIt led to chaos and decay of a magnificent civilization.  Carried to its extreme, militant radical feminism could be one factor in America's travel down that same path.


Feminism in America Since the 1960s

       During the late 1960s, opinions on feminism changed drastically owing to the rise of women's liberation.  William O'Neill, a prominent male social historian, describes [36] the situation thus,  "Public attention was first drawn to it [women's liberation] when radical feminists picketed the Miss America contest in Atlantic City on September 7, 1968.  Charging that beauty contests degraded women, the demonstrators crowned a live sheep Miss America, and threw 'old bras, girdles, high-heeled shoes, women's magazines, curlers, and other instruments of torture to women' into a 'freedom ashcan.'  The women's liberation movement was notable for its hatred of capitalism and the male sex, and for its outrageous rhetoric.  These attributes lacked wide appeal, and as the 1960s receded, women's liberation became dated and finally irrelevant."


       O'Neill describes the resurgence of militant feminism with the formation of a new organization for women [37].  "Though less publicized at first, another kind of feminism had been developing for much of the decade.  In 1963 Betty Friedan published The Feminine Mystique, a best-selling attack on inequality.  Three years later Friedan became the first president of the National Organization for Women (NOW), formed by herself and some 300 like-minded men and women."


       O'Neill defines the feminist's goal of equality in two ways [38].  "Most often it referred to what in the nineteenth century was called 'equal rights' or 'woman's rights,' that is to say, equal opportunity.  Yet almost from the start some feminists thought, at times anyway, about 'perfect' equality, that is, not just an equal chance but an equal result.  Early in this century when the movement was at its peak, feminists believed if women had the same legal and political rights as men, and the same admission to desirable occupations, that would be sufficient.  But experience has shown that equal opportunity involves more than merely seeing to it that women are not discriminated against.  Because women remain the primary child-care providers, they are handicapped in the job market and frequently cannot take advantage of equal access even where it exists.  For women to function on anything like same terms as men, they need not just open doors but supportive public policies.  These would include guaranteed child-support payments in the case of divorce, ready access to high-quality nurseries and day care centers, paid maternity and paternity leaves, and whatever else is required to make working mothers competitive.  This is a matter of fairness, but also of social health because there are national needs — aggravated in recent years by the divorce crisis and the feminization of poverty — that cannot be met except through government intervention.


       'Perfect' equality is something else.  One can imagine a society in which women would have equal rights and opportunities.  It might resemble Sweden.  What is nearly impossible to imagine is a society in which men and women are functionally identical, both sexes sharing equally in all aspects of life, an androgynous society perhaps, in which behavior would no longer be linked to sex.  Such a state of affairs obtains nowhere in the modern world, and so, since we do not know what genuine equality would mean in practice, its desirability cannot fairly be assessed."


       O'Neill further defines two feminist traditions since the Civil War [39].  "What I call social feminists [Friedan et al.] occupy one end of the spectrum.  They are reformers who want equal rights for women, but not at the expense of other causes."  For example, when given a choice between a career and making a home for her children, the married mother with an intact family chose her family [40] (if both were not an option).  "Studies demonstrate that 'virtually all women today share a basic core of commitment to the family and to their own equality within and beyond it, as long as family and equality are not seen to be in conflict.'"


       O'Neill delineates the difference between social and hard-core feminists [41].  "Opposite to the social feminists are what I often refer to as 'hard-core' or 'extreme' feminists, though the term equalitarian seems preferable today.  These feminists put women's individual rights before everything else."  He argues that equalitarian feminists have consistently erred by mistaking symbols for reality.  He argues that their stress on symbols such as the Equal Rights Amendment does not address a primary source of women's inequality, "their bearing and rearing of children.'"


       O'Neill points out that there are two approaches to dealing with this constraint imposed by nature, given the refusal of men to share in homemaking and child care on a fifty-fifty basis [42].  "One approach is to restructure or possibly even abolish, the nuclear family (one with a father, mother, and children living together within marriage).  A number of utopian communities were conducting radical experiments that bore directly on the question.  Among Shakers there were no family units, women equal to men, and children born prior to their parents' entry into the sect became a collective responsibility."


       Observe that the Shaker movement, from its inception in 1787 in New Lebanon, New York to its zenith in the 1850s consisted of 18 major Shaker communities [43] in New England to Ohio and Kentucky as well as six shorter lived ones located as far south as Florida and as far west as Indiana.  At its height in the 1850s, the Shaker movement had an estimated 6,000 members in self-supporting communities from Maine to Kentucky.  From this peak membership in 1850, the number of Shakers had declined to fewer than a dozen in 1985.  Among other factors, the Shaker vow of celibacy was the major factor in their decline.  Their continued existence, as is the modern-day case for homosexuals, depended upon the recruitment of non-members to their fold.


       O'Neil makes an important observation concerning American communities which have tried alternatives to the traditional family unit.  "In the Oneida community also family units did not exist, children being supported by the sect as a whole.  But the Shakers abolished sexual relations entirely and so could not reproduce themselves.  On the other hand, wild sexuality flourished in the Oneida community, women remained unequal.  Although these utopian experiments offered alternatives to the nuclear family, they were not usable ones.  Americans seldom wanted [or want] to live communally.  In the end, even those few communities, notably Oneida, that abolished marriage and the family but not sexual relations were destroyed.  Apart from the Shakers, who as celibates did not give to scandal, nineteenth-century Americans would not tolerate variations on the family regardless of circumstances."


       Current events tell us that the family unit is indeed under attack by the equalitarian feminists and others in the 1990s.  O'Neill goes on to describe the other alternative for 'pure' equality of women with men, given the constraints placed on women by nature — that of child-rearing.  "If the family unit cannot be reconstructed so as to give mothers equality of opportunity, the alternative is to provide them with state support.  By the turn of the century that idea no longer seemed fanciful.  Democratic socialism was on the rise in many European countries, carrying with it the promise of maternal benefits.  Indeed, the combination of democratic socialism and social feminism would lead Europe to welfare states that today provide a wide range of subsidies and services to women and children, and that, sometimes intentionally, sometimes as a side effect, give women more real opportunities than exist in the United States, where social democracy has remained underdeveloped.  Indeed, all social movements in the United States have failed, removing it as an option."


       Of course, if O'Neill were writing these words in the 1990s, he would observe that the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the economic pressures of worldwide recession have diminished or eliminated these socialist avenues — they were not workable.  Even communist/socialist governments such as the People's Republic of China have implemented democratic/free market reforms in the 1990s.  The welfare states in the European community are all suffering severe economic stress (11% jobless rates) due to the heavy burden of welfare and universal health care costs.


       O'Neill summarizes the feminist movement as follows [44], "If we assume that the conjugal family system with its great demands upon women was a fairly recent development and became general only in the nineteenth century, then the feminist response becomes explicable.  In completing the transformation of the family from a loosely organized, if indispensable, adjunct of Western society into a strictly defined nuclear unit at the very center of social life, the Victorians laid a burden on women which many of them could or would not bear.  Feminism is then, perhaps best understood as one reaction to the great pressures that accompanied the emergence of the nuclear family.  It was not a rebellion born of ancient slavery but part of a collective response to the sexual awareness deliberately inspired by Victorian society in an attempt to foster what the twentieth century would consider an oppressive domesticity."


       The feminist movement reached a zenith in 1918 when the suffragists succeeded in the political activism that produced the Nineteenth Amendment giving women the right to vote.  O'Neill observes that the Great Depression of the 1929-1941 period effectively decommissioned this movement [45].  "With its eclipse after 1930, feminism as a distinctive force in the national life ceased to exist.  By that time, the shape of women's lives in the post-suffrage era had already been determined, not by politics but by a combination of social and intellectual changes later to be condemned as the Feminine Mystique."


       "Legend has it that when feminism collapsed, women abandoned themselves to pleasure, smoking in public, visiting speakeasies, and engaging in casual sex.  Though exaggerated, these were not entirely false alarms but responses to a real change in the behavior of middle-class women.  What was then (1920s) called the revolution in morals involved such things as more openness about sex, more sex before marriage, a rising demand for contraceptives, less confining clothes for women, and freer relations between the sexes.  These new forms of conduct, though often blamed on feminists, frequently distressed them.  The movement never wished to secure women's right to pursue their own pleasures and interests as selfishly as men.  Yet that seemed to be what emancipated young women in the 1920s were doing, much to their elders' disgust.  Women seemed to have adopted the theory that the purpose of sex is recreation."


       "The earliest surveys, made in the 1920s and 1930s, revealed that women born after 1890, but especially after 1910, were far less likely to be virgins when wed than their mothers' generation.  This change is the bedrock underlying every theory about the revolution in morals. All the same, it appears that these women usually lost their virginity to fiancés, actual or intended, which establishes the limit of their rebellion.  Previously, women had saved themselves until married; now an engagement ring would do.  The cultural norm had indeed shifted, but not so radically as people thought [46]."

       O'Neill goes on to describe the liberalization of sexual norms [47].  "If the dating habits of young women led their critics frequently to mistake smoke for fire, so also did the sexualization of everyday life.  In the 1920s Americans entered the age of high mass consumption, which meant better incomes, greater leisure, and as a result, higher levels of self-indulgence.  Thanks to the emerging mass media, mass marketers could exploit the consumer's enhanced purchasing power as never before.  Because these developments coincided with the liberalization of sexual norms, it was fated that sex itself would be merchandised directly in erotic books and movies, and would be used as a marketing device to sell everything from textiles to motorcars.  Women had been treated as sex objects before, it is true, but never on such a scale."


       "The new morality and the expanding consumer culture made people think that women had gained more independence than actually was the case.  In reality women's lives were being shaped more than ever by three great tendencies, all having originated in the previous century.  The divorce rate, high to begin with, was continuing to rise, as was the percentage of married women who worked outside their homes.  The birth rate was still falling.  Although it is often difficult to explain demographic movements, by the 1920s certain connections were well established.  The era's relative prosperity disguised the fact that low family incomes and broken marriages were forcing more married women to seek paid employment.  Smaller families made it easier for them to do so.  In 1930 more than half of the 10,632,000 gainfully employed women were married, widowed, or divorced.  Thus, whereas in the nineteenth century nearly all working women had been single and childless, by the 1920s a large proportion were mothers.  This had profound, and generally unrecognized implications for the future."  The pressures on mothers to join the work force, from whatever source, contributed to the future trend toward latchkey children and in the extreme, to mothers who neglect or abandon their children to the streets.  For example, the Census Bureau reports [48] that in 1991 about 1.6 million children ages 5 to 14 come home from school to empty homes.  One-third of them were 11 year-old or younger.  Census bureau officials believe the true number of latchkey children [49] is closer to 5 million since many parents hesitate to admit that their children are home alone.  Some of these children, reared by a single mother who works by day and attends college or some other activity at night, are abandoned to a life in the streets [50].  Some of these young people become wanton killers.


       Since the 1920s and 1930s, American women were moving to what has been termed a "companionate marriage," the form that still prevails today.  O'Neill provides a view of this phenomenon [51],  "Unlike its predecessors, companionate marriage emphasizes sexual attraction and equal rights.  Feminists had helped create the new ideal by encouraging women to demand more opportunity and independence within marriage as well as outside it.  Unwittingly, they promoted changes harmful to feminism itself."


       "Both wings of the feminist movement had gained to some extent from women's dissatisfaction with marriage.  Social feminists addressed it positively, holding that freer women would be better wives and rear healthier children.  Equalitarians, in contrast, throve on gender conflict, and promoted a radical individualism not always compatible with marriage and the family.  Hence, when large numbers of women resented marriage, feminism prospered; when it was viewed more favorably, the movement declined.  That the 1920s did not inaugurate an age of unbridled license, as so many feared, was in large measure because companionate marriage proved able to contain the new morality."


       "For nineteenth-century Americans [52], mutual affection had been the key to a happy marriage; for the twentieth-century Americans, it remained basic, but sexual fulfillment was added on.  This brought marriage up to date in conformity with the teachings of science and psychology as then understood.  Yet if the new morality made wedlock more challenging and attractive to emancipated  young women, it also boosted the risk of failure.  Previously, the main requirement of marital sex was that it be present.  After the issue of equality entered in, it had to gratify as well.  Failure to satisfy one's partner could be grounds for divorce, by itself or in combination with others.  Sex in marriage, even more than before, had become a two-edged sword."


       O'Neill observes that World War II had a profound change in women’s independence [53].  "World War II did not change the prevailing belief that a married woman's place was in the home, but she was impelled to leave it just the same.  Between 1940 and 1945 the female work force grew by more than 50 percent, from almost 12 million to 18,620,000, and three-quarters of the new female workers were married.  By the war's end one of every four wives was employed.  The United States had no choice in the matter.  Almost 16 million males (compared to 350,000 females) wore uniforms during the war.  Women, and married women at that, were urgently required to meet industry's need for a greatly expanded labor force.  Women in the civil service grew from 200,000 in 1939 to over a million in 1944."


       After World War II most Americans, women included, resumed their old ways of thinking.  The great majority believed [54] that "wives whose husbands could support them should not work, and that women ought to manage their homes and children while men decided where they should live and how to spend their money.  The cult of domesticity surged again, perhaps more strongly than ever.  To Betty Friedan, who later named it the 'feminine mystique,' it seemed brand new, and the 1930s, in retrospect, a golden age of feminine autonomy.  She was wrong on this point, not knowing that the symbols of female achievement she remembered from girlhood were pools left by an ebbing tide.  But Friedan was right to see the postwar period as a time when all institutions seemingly conspired to make autonomy for women difficult."


       "Though Friedan overstated her case, the facts were in her favor.  Beginning even during the war, and more powerfully afterward, a demographic counterrevolution was taking place.  The birth rate, in decline for as long as records had been kept, rose sharply.  The divorce rate, which had been rising for just as long, declined from 1946 until the late 1950s.  These were the baby-boom years, when men and women alike rediscovered the charms of domesticity.  Why they did so, and with such enthusiasm, is not easy to say.  Probably the long years of depression, and especially of war, were responsible as young people could not marry and make their own homes according to previous timetables.  Most young men had spent, on the average, three years in uniform.  Upon being discharged, they and their brides were eager to make up for lost time.  Whatever the reasons for it, domesticity flourished in the 1940s and 1950s at the expense of feminine achievement."


       O'Neill observes that the 1950s were a period of tranquility and prosperity unlike any previous period in U.S. history [55].  "It must be remembered that although the complacency of the 1950s is easy to mock, indeed, was mocked at the time, people were smug for a reason.  If they had too many babies by present standards, they also had fewer divorces.  Illegal drugs were not a serious trouble and, partly because of that, crime rates were relatively low.  The illegitimate birth rate was a fraction of what it is today.  Society was much more conservative than now, but in these and other important ways, it was also healthier."


       The early portents of the feminist tide of the 1990s were evident in the 1960s.  O'Neill points out that these portents were overshadowed at first by the great social and political movements for which the 1960s are known: the civil rights crusade, the New Left, and the counterculture [56].  "The new feminism drew heavily upon the experiences of these movements, which it would outlive.  Sometimes the lessons were negative.  Women's liberation, for example, was an angry reaction to the male chauvinism of the civil rights movement and especially that of the New Left.  Yet, while rejecting the New Left's sexism, women's liberation carried on the movement's self-defeating extremism and was undone by it, fading from sight by the 1980s.  Mainstream feminists were influenced by the freedom movements too, but learned enough from their experience to avoid self-destruction.  Thus, feminists were able to take advantage of the new emphasis on individual rights.  In 1963 the Equal Pay Act barred employers from discriminating against women.  Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act prohibited private employers, employment agencies, and unions from discriminating on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, and sex."


       O'Neill observes that the 1960s were entirely different from the 1950s.  Women did not make up lost ground [57] until the mid-1980s.  "The results were not long in coming.  In the 1960s women still lagged behind men academically, earning 42 percent of all bachelor degrees, 32 percent of master degrees, and 10 percent of all doctorates, but by 1985 women were earning half of all bachelor and master degrees and over a third of the doctorates.  Similarly, in 1985 women received 30 percent of all medical degrees, up from 13 percent in 1975; 21 percent of dental degrees, up from 3 percent; and 38 percent of law degrees, up from 15 percent.  In 1985 of all women entering college, 28 percent planned to major in business, making it the most popular major for them as well as for men.  Thanks to the increased supply, plus equal employment measure, women are far more prominent in the professions, business, and government than they were a generation ago.  Winning equality of access to most occupations is the greatest achievement of modern feminism, and was accomplished with far greater speed than seemed possible when the movement started up again."


       "Although the new freedom has benefited college women [58], its advantages for the sex as a whole are less clear.  Married women continue to flood the job market.  Between 1960 and 1980 the female work force almost doubled, and by 1983 more than three of every five women were wage earners.  By 1980 over half of all married women worked, compared with one of five thirty years earlier, and the proportion is still rising."


       "The divorce rate has been rising for a very long time, the postwar period excepted, but its astonishing growth during the past quarter of a century was probably caused by the counterculture of the 1960s.  That youthful attempt to destroy authority faded quickly, but it has had lasting results.  It took the pleasure principle to undreamed-of lengths, introduced recreational narcotics into everyday life, and launched the sexual revolution.  Despite AIDS, these are still with us.  The central demand of the counterculture was for absolute personal freedom — freedom for others too if convenient, but at all cost for oneself.  And that message is what has survived the counterculture.  Hippies are scarce today, and communes also.  Young people are no longer urged to 'tune in, turn on, and drop out.'  What remains is the widespread belief that personal fulfillment is the highest human right.  Removable impediments to it, such as unsatisfactory marriages, are not to be tolerated."


       O'Neill observes that the sexual revolution had a marked affect on the economic position of many women – downward [59].  "The increase of divorce, and of illegitimate births also, has meant that more and more families are headed by women.  In the early 1970s as many as one in nine families was in this position — today it is one in six.  Their average annual income is $13,500, which puts them just above the poverty line.  Typically, one-seventh of that income goes out again in taxes, making most female-headed families poor, or nearly so.  Today, [1970] more than half of everyone who lives in actual poverty, including 12 million children, belong to such families.  As the above figures suggest, a majority of divorced fathers literally abandon their children.  Two months after a divorce fewer than half the fathers see their children as often as once a week; after three years half the fathers do not visit their children at all.  Such callousness is hard to explain except in terms of the pleasure principle, according to which people have a right, possibly a duty, to change sexual partners as desired.  A corollary seems to be that the free man has no responsibilities except to himself.  In theory, the sexual revolution was supposed to liberate both sexes equally.  In practice, it is chiefly men who have benefited, and then at the expense of their families.  Our inflated divorce rate and the wholesale abandonment of children by fathers have no equals in the developed world, and in few if any comparable societies are families thus deserted left so entirely alone.  These are the bitter fruits of an individualism gone increasingly out of control."  Observe that this condition existed in ancient Greece wherein the men bypassed marriage and if unsuccessful in this effort, refused to have and support children.  As a result of this insult to the family unit, democratic and glorious Greece simply disappeared from the scene of history.


       O'Neill observes that militant feminism was leading social feminists away from their lofty goals of enhancing the importance of the family in America [60].  "Once feminists would have led the struggle to reform [society's] abuses.  The woman's movement was in the van of every effort to abolish child labor, combat alcoholism, protect female workers, and do whatever else seemed necessary to defend American families.  But organized feminism today [1970] is dominated by women who are for equality at all costs and above all else.  This can be seen in the long, ultimately pointless campaign for the Equal Rights Amendment.  When the Woman's party first put it forward, a reasonable case could be made for the ERA.  But by 1872, when Congress passed it, the amendment was fast becoming obsolete.  By 1976 the Supreme Court had reinterpreted the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment so as to cover women.  These decisions made most of the statutes and official practices that the ERA would have eliminated in 1972 presumptively unconstitutional even in the absence of an ERA.  Because the ERA was no longer needed and conservative opposition to it was growing, prudence dictated an orderly withdrawal and the redeployment of feminist resources elsewhere.  This did not happen.  But it was good business to press ahead anyway, for between 1977 and 1982, when it was preoccupied with the ERA, NOW's annual budget grew from $700,000 to $8.5 million, and membership jumped from 55,000 to 210,000.  NOW has managed to escape the pitfalls that destroyed women's liberation but continues to pursue symbols of equality at the expense of social justice, thus recapitulating the barren history of militant feminism.  Betty Friedan, the founder of NOW, published another major book, The Second Stage, arguing that feminists are overly involved in sexual politics, and too focused on rape and pornography at the expense of other issues.  The sexual war against men has been irrelevant and self-defeating.  Then too, Friedan argues, feminists need to stop representing individualism as the preferred alternative to domestic life.  Women should not be asked to choose between equality and the family; they want both.  Studies demonstrate that 'virtually all women today share a basic core of commitment to the family to their own equality within and beyond it, as long as family and equality are not seen to be in conflict."


       O'Neill claims that "Friedan may err in particulars but she is right about the direction that not only feminists but Americans as a whole should take.  Women are entitled to equal opportunity and whatever is needed to implement it, but ensuring individual rights alone does not make for a healthy social order.  Conservatives have always feared that women's rights would destroy the family, and for a long time this made them seem ridiculous.  They are still ridiculed today, even though events have been catching up with their predictions."


       In an otherwise thoughtful article on religious fundamentalists, O'Neill quotes a noted social historian who summed up their state of mind a generation ago thus [61]: "'Male lust, the flip side of androgyny, showed its face everywhere, from the porno houses to the divorce courts.  More important, the calls for equality by ERA feminists...promised to allow men to evade their manly responsibilities, prey upon women's bodies, and deny women the legal and moral protections they deserve.  A hideous vision unfolded before fundamentalists' eyes, a drama of innocence defiled: sexual and mental abuse of women and children; pornographers trading in a distorted view of women as a masculine wish-fulfillment; babies slain in their mother's wombs — all in the name of a sexual 'freedom' that, ironically, did more to oppress women than to liberate them [62].'"


       "At one time, it is true, this picture would have seemed overdrawn.  Yet after what has happened since the 1960s how can it still be denied that the sexual revolution has been a dubious blessing for women?"


       We have now come to the point where radical feminists insist on the one hand that sexual abuse includes even "lookism," that is, a man can be charged with sexual abuse by simply looking at a woman in public without her permission.  Rules at some universities, including Antioch in Ohio, would place such a man in a position of administrative punishment and/or expulsion simply on the basis of a complaint of a feminist who presses the charge.  On the other hand, the feminists push constantly for the right of women to be brutalized by an enemy who might capture them from a combat unit in a war-fighting situation.


       As O'Neill observes [63], "Equalitarian feminists have learned nothing from history, while social feminists, like Betty Friedan, seem to be all too rare...There is now, or soon will be, what suffragists had expected but didn't get: a female voting bloc.  The irony is that it falls apart when confronted with abortion and the ERA.  In the past when contraceptives and equal suffrage were seen as threats to family life, most women opposed them.  It was only after social feminists established them as helpful to the family that women changed sides.  Today, when most feminist leaders are concentrating on equalitarian issues, this kind of argument is not being made very well.  As Betty Friedan says, women want equality and the family.  However, if forced to choose between them, most women still put the family first."


Militant Radical Feminism and the Counter-Culture in America

       O'Neill has written a comprehensive account of the counter-culture movement that rode roughshod over America during the late 1960s and early 1970s.  He describes how emerging militant feminism has its roots in the counter-culture movement [64].  "One of the peculiarities of modern history is that feminism is always thought ridiculous.  The old feminist movement, while a mighty social expression that lasted nearly a century and involved millions of women at its peak, struggled against ridicule to the end.  One way to avoid being made fun of was to use different terms.  Thus, 'women's liberation' became the accepted term.  Some of the attention [associated with their criticism of sex-oriented activities, e.g. the Miss America Pageant] was unwelcome.  Feminists are always thought to be more sexually accessible than other women.  This is rarely the case.  But in taking up sexual issues they expose themselves as more timid women do not.  Liberated women strongly attacked abortion laws.  This was in the great feminist tradition.  Emancipated women always wanted to control their bodies.  Hence they supported contraception early on, and sometimes easy divorce.  Legalizing abortion was another step in the same direction.  Feminists regarded it as a defensive measure.  But prurient males saw it as a preliminary to sexual license.  A few women wanted to do away with the concept of illegitimacy so that unwed mothers would not be discouraged or discriminated against.  This too incited lust."


       "Militant feminists were, and always had been, more suspicious of sex than not.  While some practiced, or even advocated, free love, most did not.  More than that, they tended to view heterosexual relations as inherently exploitive of women.  Men and women shared the pleasure, but women alone paid the price.  The most extreme wing of the women's liberation movement put this line into practice.  Though often attractive, they stopped dating men.  Some even uglified themselves in protest against the exploitation of feminine charm.  A few stopped wearing bras on the mistaken theory that it would reduce their sex appeal.  And they raged against the entire male sex, to the point, in some cases, of advocating lesbianism.  Such women were full of suppressed anger."


       Men naturally resented the feminist complaints.  O'Neill describes the reaction of liberal men in the media and society in general thus, "The violent abuse that feminists everywhere encountered was all out of proportion to what they did.  Liberal men like David Susskind invited them on television programs for the sole purpose of insulting them, so it seemed.  Everyone with the slightest experience in these matters was struck by how much sheer bigotry men were willing to express.  In fact, among ordinary middle-class people anti-feminism seemed the only remaining respectable prejudice."  A goal of today's gender feminsts is to reverse the object of such prejudice, that is, toward males.  In particular, their object of scorn and hatred appears to be some imaginary phallocentric society dominated by males of European ancestry.


       Counter-culture as a term appeared late in the 1960s.  According to O'Neill [65], "It largely replaced the term 'youth culture,' which finally proved too limited.  When the sixties began, youth culture meant the way adolescents lived.  Its central institutions were the high school and the mass media.  Its principal activities were consuming goods and enacting courtship rituals.  Critics and students of the youth culture were chiefly interested in the status and value systems associated with it.  As time went on, college enrollments increased to the point where colleges were nearly as influential as high schools in shaping the young.  The molders of youthful opinion got more ambitious.  Where once entertainers were content to amuse for profit, many began seeing themselves as moral philosophers.  Music especially became a medium of propaganda, identifying the young as a distinct force in society with unique values and aspirations.  This helped produce a kind of ideological struggle between the young and their elders called the 'generation gap.'  It was the first time in American history that social conflict was understood to be a function of age. Yet the young were not all rebellious.  Most in fact retained confidence in the 'system' and its norms.  Many older people joined the rebellion, whose progenitors were as often over thirty (where the generation gap was supposed to begin) as under it.  The attack on accepted views and styles broadened so confusingly that 'youth culture' no longer described it adequately.  Thus the term, counter-culture."


       The hippie of the 1960s was an embodiment of the counter-culture [66].  The youthful hippies of the late 1960s were mostly college students who set out to shock older America by their words and their deeds.  According to O'Neill, "Hippies lived together in 'tribes or 'families.'  Their golden rule was 'Be nice to others, even when provoked, and they will be nice to you...hippies were always glad of chances to shock the bourgeoisie, which made them seem more depraved than they were.  Then too, people expected them to be sexually perverse, and the more public-spirited hippies tried to oblige.  Like good troupers they hated to let the public down, though willing to put it on.  Actually, among hippies the combination of bad diets, dope, communal living, and the struggle to survive made for a restricted sex life."


       "In the end it was the media that destroyed hippiedom.  The publicity given the summer of love attracted countless thousands of disturbed youngsters to the Haight-Ashbury (a district near Golden Gate Park in San Francisco, CA) and the East Village (a nearby district of poor ethnics) in 1967.  They came, bringing in their train of psychotics, drug peddlers, and all sorts of criminals.  Drug poisoning, hepatitis (from infected needles), and various diseases resulting from malnutrition and exposure thinned their ranks.  Rapes, muggings, and assaults became commonplace.  Hippies had little money, but they were irresistibly easy marks.  Hippie girls were safe to assault.  They reacted passively, and as many were drug users and runaways they could not go to the police.  So the violence mounted.  Stabbings, death, and rape were the backdrop of how the summer of love ended."


       "Though few in number, hippies had a great effect on middle-class youth.  Hippies made religion socially acceptable.  Their interest in the supernatural was contagious."


       "Science was discredited as an agent of the military-industrial complex.  It had failed to make life more attractive.  Logic seemed everywhere to be giving way to intuition, and self-discipline to impulse.  Romanticism had never worked well in the past.  It seemed to be doing as badly in the present.  The hippies went from flower power to death-tripping in a few years.  The counter-cultural ethic remained as beguiling as ever in theory.  In practice, like most utopian dreams, human nature tended to defeat it."


       All of this has been borne out by now-grown Boomer Generation leaders who were affected by the rebellious 1960s, like Hillary Clinton, waxing philosophical [67] about such things as the 'politics of meaning' during the early months of 1993.  Indeed, the Clintons' reaction to the current Whitewater "scandal" in which the Clintons are implicated in questionable ethics while the first family of Arkansas, abuse of power, improper use of funds in Savings and Loans via unrepaid personal and political loans, reveals a moral arrogance that has its roots in the late 1960s counter-culture rebellion.  Commentator George Will [68] points out that "The sensibility of the 1960s, the Clintons' formative years, featured intellectual conceit and moral vanity...Vanity is what children of the 1960s learned in college, when professors and other adults who like the younger generation's politics said it was a singularly moral generation.  Taught that their sincerity legitimized their intentions, the children of the 1960s grew up convinced they could not do wrong.  Hence the Clinton administration's genuine bewilderment when accused of ethical lapses.  It is a theoretical impossibility for people in 'the party of compassion' to behave badly because good behavior is whatever they do...There can be no honorable disagreement with a child of the 1960s."  Will accuses [69] Hillary Clinton, an elite Boomer of "..having unsheathed a 1960s style of discourse, treating political differences as occasions for moral assaults" in her public defense of her health care plan.


       Even politically indeterminate [70] commentator Joe Klein of Newsweek characterizes the elite Boomers in the White House as [71] "...a liberal elite [which]...divides the world between us and them, the high-minded and the greedy."  The public evidence of the moral certitude and arrogance of the leaders of the Boomer generation, now in high places, points toward a rising tide of consensus on this matter.  An author describes [72] Bill Clinton's record as Governor of Arkansas.  "...what sets Mr. Clinton apart from others involved in such quests [a limited vision, a single-minded pursuit of greatness] is his ability to attract disciples — young, idealistic, righteous disciples — to his cause.  Despite their resolve, or perhaps because of it, the young, the idealistic and the righteous are pliable creatures, capable of moving easily from the headiness of ordinance to defiant, defensive ordnance when their causes appear threatened by less enlightened souls.  That the greatness and accomplishment they would bring would be challenged by ignorance and pettiness and inanity is more than a personal affront, it is treachery.  Messiahs are supposed to be beloved."


       Even moderate feminist commentators recognize the weak leadership qualities of the elite Boomers who led the tide of campus rebellion during the 1960s.  Georgie Anne Geyer comments on Hillary Clinton's embodiment of the Boomer attitude being described here [73]. "First, she is utterly convinced that she is right, and that she and the activist leaders of her generation have a sacred duty to use any methods they choose to reform and even 'save' America...The Clintons, you see, did not come to the presidency to govern the country, but to tell people how to live.  They and theirs were not 'pols' but the legendary 'best and the brightest.'  And Hillary goes even further than her husband on the supposed morality behind this elaborate posturing.  Her 'politics of meaning' article in the New York Times Magazine last year, bemoaning the lost America she and her generation seem to see, was the high-water point of this pretentiousness.  In fact, many Americans choose to think they already have meaning in their lives!  From the outset, the Clintons seemed to be suffering from the quality that so often brought down the Greek gods: hubris, or an overweening pride that dances dangerously on the edge of moral arrogance."  Others, primarily the more conservative commentators [74] gleefully point out the failings of hypocritical Boomers, now deeply involved in a serious presidential "scandal."  "The delicious part of this one is that Hillary Clinton, one of the starlets of the most morally pampered generation in history, should be the center of the [Whitewater] scandal.  Hillary Rodham was a leading young voice of protest at Wellesley, awing her elders with her moral passion.  She went on to Yale Law School, then joined the staff of the Rodino Committee in 1974 as it hunted down the evil Mr. Nixon.  Ambitious though she was, she never dreamed she'd one day be the quarry in a similar hunt...The Hillarists in the press have covered her worshipfully, with no sense of irony, as she asserted her claim to be our moral empress, making sure we don't reap excessive profits, abuse our children or smoke.  It's fitting, somehow, that she has been a 'spokesperson' for children's rights — a cause that reeks of moral arrogance.  Its champions always imply that they care more about your kids than you do."


       Indeed, there appears to be a consensus among liberal, conservative, and even independent commentators that something central characterizes the elite Boomer contribution to national leadership in the 1990s — arrogance.  Moral arrogance, intellectual arrogance, and political arrogance!  It is their hallmark as could have been predicted from their record in the late 1960s as they grew to young adulthood while the secular crisis of the Vietnam War loomed large on their horizon.  This is a generation whose elites have come to political power without the conditioning, practical experience, and character to lead.  We are beginning to see the consequences of and future promise of their reign.


       O'Neill continues to describe the elite Boomer ethos [75] of the 1960s.  "The dreary propaganda about youth's insurgent idealism continued into the 1970s.  American society went on being obsessed with the young.  The economy was already rich enough to support a substantial leisure class, as the hippies demonstrated.  The movement toward guaranteed incomes would make idleness even more feasible.   How utopian to have a society in which the decision to work was voluntary!"


       "What was striking about the 1960s was that the revolt against discipline, even self-discipline, and authority spread so widely [76].  The rise of hedonism and the decline of work were obviously functions of increased prosperity, and also of effective merchandising.  The consumer economy depended on advertising, which in turn leaned heavily on the pleasure principle.  This had been true for fifty years at least, but not until television did it really work well.  The generation that made the counter-culture was the first to be propagandized from infancy on behalf of the pleasure principle."  As has been pointed out previously in this report, this principle was precisely the one that led to the dissolution, decay, and death of democracy and the advanced civilization of ancient Greece.  America is following the same path to chaos.


       O'Neill continues to assess the counter-culture of the late 1960s.  "Though much in the counter-culture was attractive and valuable, it was dangerous in three ways.  First, self-indulgence led frequently to self-destruction.  Second, the counter-culture increased social hostility.  The generation gap was one example, but the class gap another.  Working-class youngsters resented the counter-culture.  They had to work whether they liked it or not.  The counter-culture was geographical too.  It flourished in cities and on campuses.  Elsewhere, in Middle America especially, it was hated and feared.  The result was a national division between the counter-culture and those adults who admired or tolerated it — upper-middle-class professionals and intellectuals in the Northeast particularly — and the silent majority of workers and Middle Americans who did not.  Finally, the counter-culture was hell on standards.  Truth and beauty were in the eye of the beholder.  They were discovered or created by the pure of heart.  Formal education and training were not, therefore, merely redundant but dangerous for obstructing channels through which the spirit flowed."  From this kind of thinking came the rationalization of the relative nature of values and a subsequent rejection of absolutes, the rise of postmodernism and the "Living Constitution" in America of the 1980s and 1990s.


       Students completely took over major universities across the land.  What began as an attack on the relevance and process of higher education ended by attacking the university itself.  According to O'Neill [77], "Many protesters, lacking serious reasons for being in college, resented having to study.  History was not so onerous as say, engineering, but to people with little interest in history it was trying enough.  And it wasn't 'relevant.'  That is to say, studying history did not promote peace, racial justice, and similar good things.  Grades were arbitrary, unreasonable, and discriminatory."


       "These attacks were demoralizing in the extreme, even when unaccompanied by threats or violence.  Liberal education rested on a very few unexamined, and probably unprovable, assumptions: that learning was a good thing in its own right; that it could be measured by tests and grades with reasonable accuracy; that the mind was a muscle to be strengthened by difficult exercises.  As there was no way to verify these propositions, their vitality depended on general agreement.  When that consensus was destroyed, faculty morale collapsed."


       As a result the students completely took over the nation's universities.  An example of the kind of thinking of students in the 1960s is that of Bill Clinton.  He attended two years at Oxford as a Rhodes Scholar without ever taking any examinations and did not graduate.  Aside from using Oxford as an excuse for avoiding the draft, he put into practice those elements of the student rebellion of the 1960s which started the slippery slide to mediocrity in the 1990s.


       Radical militant feminism is an outgrowth of the devastating counter-culture movement of the late 1960s.  It joins postmodernism in our universities and the concept of a "Living Constitution" in our legal system in a concerted drive to undermine America's experiment with democracy.  Militant feminism of the 1990s is the result of an excess of leisure time inducing boredom which in turn stems from the luxury produced by the  economic largess of our democratic society.  This condition has reared its ugly head before, leading to the weakening of the very civilization that produced such largess.  This weakening has led to chaos and decay of institutions on whose foundation the civilization was built.  This grim history is a warning to America.  Our experiment with democracy, based on individual freedom and the rule of law, is in peril on many fronts.  Radical militant feminism is one of those factors which, when added to the others, could well lead to the dissolution of our republic.


Runaway Radical Feminism

       It is an accident of American history that the advantages written into law by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 were extended to women as well as to blacks. It is an added irony that this event led to a completely unintended consequence — white men benefited from the Civil Rights Act of 1964 more than black men, the intended beneficiaries.  After all, white men primarily marry white women, the accidental recipients of anti-discrimination benefits.  Although blacks benefited from the legislation, so did (in even larger numbers) white women.  Blacks were to be the beneficiaries of centuries-long violation of the civil rights of the ancestors of former slaves.  America spoke with one voice against the oppression of black Americans and supported legislation to correct that mistake.  Unfortunately, the opponents of civil rights for black Americans tried to derail the legislation by extending the same rights to women — a move that these opponents were sure would lead to the defeat of the legislation.


       The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was originally written [78] to "...forbid discrimination on account of 'race, creed, religion, and national origin.'  An amendment, passed with the bill added 'sex' to the list.  In the end, this late addition would become one of the primary legal bases for fighting discrimination based on gender in succeeding decades."  The legislators who proposed the amendment were anti-liberal opponents of the entire civil rights bill.  These southern legislators "...believed in the French phrase for it when they speak of women and men...'vive la difference.'  They imagined an upheaval that would result from adoption of blanket language requiring total equality!  Would male citizens be justified in insisting that women share with them the burdens of compulsory military service?  What would become of traditional family relationships?  What about alimony?  Who would have the obligation of supporting whom?  Would fathers rank equally with mothers in the right of custody to children?"  All of these questions, supposedly answered overwhelmingly in the negative in the mid-1960s, would appear on the horizon in the 1990s with devastating impact on our society.  The prevailing trend, primarily as a result of including 'gender' in the anti-discrimination statues, is to answer all of these questions in the affirmative.  Their original purpose in introducing the amendment was to defeat the bill in its entirety.  No one would be so foolish as to answer these questions in the affirmative.  So they calculated.  Instead, a "...coalition of racists and proto-feminists prevailed, 168 to 133, and the prohibition against discrimination on account of sex then became part of the proposed bill."  When the vote on the entire measure was taken, the Southerners who had initiated and supported the sexual discrimination amendment voted no.  Still, "the bill was passed by the House 290 to 130, a notably wider margin than the touchy sexual discrimination amendment.  Proponents of gender equality finally had a foundation in the law.  In their smirky attempt to derail the bill, the racists thus changed the face of America forever.  And struck a blow for irony as well."


       A sad deeper irony of this whole saga is that the predominant result of the antidiscrimination legislation  of 1964 has been to free women to pursue professional careers (law, medicine, professorship, etc.) in unprecedented numbers to the overall benefit of white men, not black men.  In fact [79], "The average American woman makes more money nowadays, is better educated and is less likely to live in a traditional mom-and-pop household...U.S. women have more education than ever before...three-quarters of women over 25 are high school graduates, and nearly one in five has a college degree....Only one woman in four lives in what used to be the typical American household (a married couple with children)...nearly half of American women, 48.4 percent, are unmarried and their median age is now 34, compared with 31 in the 1980 census."  These independent, affluent, and powerful modern women have and are predominantly marrying white males, if they marry at all.  The black male, although enabled by the civil rights legislation to gain a piece of the American dream, has lost ground to the white male who ended up as the major beneficiary via feminist reforms.  The other major result of the civil rights legislation was to give radical militant feminists a means by which to advance their agenda on a broad front of societal reforms.  Not all of these reforms bide well for the future of our democracy!


Sexual Harassment Becomes a Feminist War Cry

       Anita Hill charged Clarence Thomas, a conservative republican, with sexual harassment during his Senate confirmation hearings.  This media circus was justified by radical militant feminists on the grounds that " forced society to take the charges seriously," even though admittedly the evidence did not substantiate the charges and the Senate confirmed Justice Thomas to the U.S. Supreme Court.  In a carefully researched book, David Brock [80], establishes circumstantial evidence that would lead most reasonable readers to believe Clarence Thomas, not Anita Hill.  Not one other witness has come forward to corroborate a pattern of abusive behavior by Clarence Thomas.  On the other hand, several witnesses have come forward to establish that Anita Hill has displayed a pattern of behavior that "alleges sexual harassment" against those who either were responsible for firing her from employment positions or failed to choose her for promotions in competition with others.  Professional psychologists and most common-sense citizens believe that behavior is displayed in patterns that reappear over time, rather than an instantaneous appearance of an act that is never repeated.  Nevertheless, since the Anita Hill/Clarence Thomas affair, radical militant feminists have escalated the issue of "sexual harassment" to the point that thirty to sixty percent [81] of all rape charges are found to be false-charges and feminist psychiatrists are using "recovered memory" techniques to falsely charge solid citizen grandparents with the sexual abuse of their children and grandchildren.  In addition, the radical militant feminists have made sexual harassment an agenda item that has been carried to entirely ridiculous extremes, such as Catherine MacKinnon (a tenured law professor at the University of Michigan), who holds that even speech can be considered rape and that all sex within marriage is rape.  Radical feminism has indeed run amok!


       Most American universities conduct freshman indoctrination courses which include workshops on sexual conduct policy.  Some universities give such workshops a threatening edge.  The message [82] is "All men are predators."  Antioch College has a Sexual Offense Policy that is nine pages long.  It goes far beyond slogans like "No means no."  "It requires [83], for 'each new level of physical and/or sexual contact/conduct,' a clear and verbal yes: yes to a kiss, then yes to a touch, then yes to unzipping.  Asking 'Do you want to have sex with me?' is not enough," the policy warns."  At Princeton University, a student thought [84] that, "...the woman leading the sexual-assault workshop his freshman year was accusatory, blaming men, saying each and every one of them had committed rape or date rape."  These attitudes are not even remotely backed up by credible research data.  In fact, at Princeton, with 2,600 graduate and undergraduate women, projections from feminist author's rape rate statistics would predict rape or attempted rape of 300 women each year.  But no rapes have been reported at Princeton in the past three years [85].  At Berkeley, with 14,000 female students, only two rapes [86] were reported to the police in 1990.  Nevertheless, concern about sexual assault has become virtually part of the curriculum at U.S. colleges.  Since July 1993, every college receiving federal aid (which is almost every college) is required [87] to have a sexual assault policy establishing disciplinary proceedings and services for assault victims.  Such inflammatory indoctrination and extreme precautions merely trivialized the brutal crime of rape, when it actually occurs.  In addition, the unnecessary precautions [88] "...infantilizes women, portraying them as helpless before the onslaught of insatiable male desire."


       Mona Charen, a respected columnist has partially explained the present mind-set regarding sexual assault on our college campuses.  She contends [89] that, "Feminism, which joined hands in the '60s with the sexual 'revolutionaries,' urged women to...plunge into promiscuity with the same verve as men.  Twenty-five years later, discovering that sex remains different for women — that women continue to feel violated and abused when they are used as sexual playthings — feminists could not admit their mistake.  They couldn't admit that the old 'double standard' from which they sought to free women had in fact been a protective cloak.  Nor could they admit their contribution to freeing the less gentlemanly impulses in men.  The double standard endures...It endures because the sexual revolution could change behavior, but it could not change people's natures.  Feminism freed women to rut like men, and women hated it.  Desperate for a return to some kind of protection from male lust, feminists invented the concept of 'date rape,' a more Victorian notion than even the Victorians held.  Whereas it was once considered improper for a man to take advantage of a woman's indisposition (say, due to excessive alcohol consumption), the new morality insists that any urging on the part of the man, including verbal, amounts to coercion, and thus to 'rape.'"

       Charen's explanation is buttressed by observations of college-age women drinking more than their predecessors.  For example [90], at Virginia Tech, the number of women charged with violating university conduct policies, by fighting, or becoming drunk in public, increased from 27 percent to 29 percent, and then to 36 percent, in the last two years.  Some women said they felt comfortable drinking more openly and abundantly than women did 10 or 15 years ago.  Some women said they drank because it gave them confidence in bars and at parties.  And some said they felt a need to compete with men.  "Women still have to prove [91] that they can go to school and party and have a career.  And if you can't drink with the guys, people don't respect you as much."  This juvenile attitude toward drinking is exactly the same attitude that young male college students matured through in past generations.  For the women, however, there is an added peril to such foolish activities.  A female senior at the University of Arizona, says that [92] "...her drinking binges nearly derailed her life, stopping only after she became the victim of an acquaintance rape."  Stories of female students waking after lost weekends are becoming more common on many campuses [93].  "It's sad, because a woman comes in and can't talk for 10 minutes because she's sobbing," said Philip W. Meilman, director of the counseling center at William and Mary.  "She says, 'I Woke up in bed and here was a young man, and I don't know how he got there or what happened.  But we were both naked.'  We hear stories like this periodically."  Many of these young women are hiding under the mantle of 'victimhood' rather than assuming any responsibility for their drinking which oftentimes led to the consequences for which they later feel shame.  The radical feminist movement strongly supports the concept of female 'victimhood' in these situations.  Hence 'sexual assault' is an epidemic national disgrace, in their eyes.


       Catharine MacKinnon, a tenured law professor at the University of Michigan and a nationally known personality, has carried the sexual assault banner to the heights of incredulity.  In her new book, 'Only Words,' professor MacKinnon argues that speech and action are interchangeable.  She frames an intricate intellectually fuzzy and impenetrable argument masquerading in dense legalese.  It is founded on the principle that pornography, which she defines as 'graphic sexually explicit materials that subordinate women through pictures or words,' is indistinguishable from actual acts of physical violence.  "To express eroticism is to engage in eroticism, meaning to perform a sex act," she writes [94].  "To say it is to do it, and to do it is to say it."  One reviewer of this book states [95], "As it [the book] accumulates its own bizarre momentum it sweeps up grievance upon grievance, most particularly those having to do with men and power.  The hatred of men that courses through this book is nothing short of astonishing, expressed as it is in sweeping generalizations about 'what men think of women, what women should do for men, where women belong, and the male rape fantasy.'  On more than a handful of occasions MacKinnon descends into pure lunacy, as when her visions of malign male dominance lead her to the conclusion that 'speech,' hence the lines within which much of life can be lived, belongs to those who own it, mainly big corporations...What MacKinnon offers is not a coherent anti-pornography program but a vast grab bag of grievances and hallucinations."  It is clear that radical militant feminism has gone amok!  The movement is as dangerous and paranoid as Catharine MacKinnon's book.  It is representative of the posmodernist movement that has America's universities in its deadly grasp.  It is the movement that is using bogus charges of sexual harassment and sexual abuse as a weapon of choice in achieving radical feminist goals.  It is the same movement that is fueling the surge toward women-in-combat in our armed forces.


       America is in the grips of a movement [96] to make every institution 'look like America.'  The American Society of Newspaper Editors, in a Clintonian gesture, is undertaking frantic activity to 'diversify' their employment.  This, put simply, means setting and meeting employment quotas based on race and ethnicity.  The National Newspaper Association has embarked on a similar mission.  The New York Times has declared that diversity has become the single most important issue facing the newspaper.  The Philadelphia Inquirer has announced a five-year plan requiring that 50 percent of its new hires must be women and 50 percent must be minorities.  Jack Nelson, chief of the Washington Bureau of the Los Angeles Times has announced that no white males will be hired "until we [do] more for minorities and women."  The trade journals are full of similar stories.  White males are becoming a disadvantaged species in the new American economic scene.


       A recent CNN television special [97], "Gender Wars," provides a detailed account of the difficulties that capable white males are encountering in finding employment, based on competitive examinations and experience, in the U.S. Forest Service.  Males who score higher than women on the competitive examinations and who have greater experience in the job area are passed over for less capable females.  This is due to the gender affirmative action programs now in force in this federal government agency.  In fact, the Clinton administration has gone directly against the tide of American public opinion and implemented rigid gender, race, and sexual orientation quotas for appointees in the executive branch of government.  Complaints have bubbled up in the press of competent male prospective appointees being turned aside because they did not have a sufficient cross-section of "looks-like-America" members on their teams.  For example [98], "Many senior [State Department] officials privately complain that so much time is spent checking with the White House about whether the proper racial and gender balance is being attained in State's various bureaus that there have been serious delays in filling positions down through the level of deputy assistant secretary and, in some cases, even lower-ranking jobs."  In fact, it has been reported that the over-year-long vacancies in many defense, justice department and other agencies in the Clinton administration is due to the personal vetting of each candidate by Hillary Clinton.  In fact [99], "One of the reasons the administration had such problems finding an attorney general is that Hillary insists on vetting every judicial appointment — just as when Bill was governor of Arkansas."  In the State Department, as well as in all other executive agencies, white males are being discriminated against in competition for jobs.  There is now a fear that they "...are facing what some officials fear could be the first in a wave of legal actions by white male officers contending that efforts to redress the complaints of women and minorities have caused a pendulum swing that treats them unfairly."  In a memo to Secretary of State, Warren Christopher in the fall of 1993, a high-level administrative official wrote [100] "...he was unable to pick someone from within the department to become State's chief financial officer because the White House personnel office 'is deeply entrenched against white male career officers.'  That position equivalent to the comptroller of a large private firm, is still unfilled."  The Clinton administration is clearly quotaing the entire executive branch on the basis of race, gender, ethnicity, and sexual orientation.

       Forty years ago, it was the dream and expectation of the sons of our factory workers to graduate from high school, get a job in a factory, buy a car, find a wife, have a family, home, recreation resources and possibly send his offspring to college if they so desired.  Today, the sons of these same factory workers, workers who have carved out a comfortable life based on their factory jobs, have no such dream.  They are lucky to find jobs in auxiliary service industries and at marginal wages if such jobs exist.  Their dream of a comfortable life such as that of their parents does not hold up.  They do not expect to have as comfortable a standard of living as their parents.  The factories have automated to such a degree that the jobs that they expected upon graduation from high school do not exist.  The factories are populated by a graying force of older workers who work overtime shifts and weekends to meet the workload [101].  "You work 10 hours a day, six days a week, and when you get up on Monday at 5 a.m., you're still tired...But where have all the young workers gone?  In America's manufacturing heartland, ranging from aluminum factories to tire plants, there are precious few of the 90's version of the muscular long-hairs who populated plants 20 years ago...only the oldest workers have survived."  Thus, the corporations do not have to shoulder the cost of benefits (retirement, health, etc.) for additional employees.  The older workers must work the extra hours or be fired.  In addition, the wives of some of the sons of the older factory workers complain that the service jobs that are available are quotaed [102] to single women, married women and other ethnic minorities before their white husbands are considered.  Some corporations are not even accepting applications from white males for job openings that are publicly advertised [103].  In fact, many of these women [104] with young children in former manufacturing cities must work while her husband stays home with the children because he cannot get a job in the current quotaed job environment.  We are losing the American dream for a generation of young American middle-class citizens.  America must regain its industrial base which is the bread and butter of our middle-class.  If we do not, we will all experience the consequences.  The consequences will not be nice!



1)  Evans, Sara M., "Born for Liberty: A History of Women in America," pp.  42, The Free Press, 1989.

2)  Horton, James H, et al, "Our Mountain Heritage: Essays on the Natural and Cultural History of Western North Carolina," pp. 99-103, Western Carolina University, 1979.

3)  Evans, Sara M., "Born for Liberty: A History of Women in America," pp. 72, The Free Press, 1989.

4)  Ibid, pp. 102.

5)  Ibid, pp. 145.

6)  Ibid, pp. 147.

7)  Ibid, pp. 160.

8)  Ibid, pp. 164.

9)  Langer, William F., "An Encyclopedia of World History," pp. 951, Houghton Mifflin Company, 1952.

10) Evans, Sara M., "Born for Liberty: A History of Women in America," pp. 172, The Free Press, 1989.

11)  Ibid, pp. 176.

12) Ibid, pp. 219.

13) Evans, Sara M., "Born for Liberty: A History of Women in America," pp. 222, The Free Press, 1989.

14) Ibid, pp. 228.

15) O'Neill, William L., "A Democracy at War: America's Fight at Home & Abroad in World War II," pp. 429, The Free Press, 1993.

16) Evans, Sara M., "Born for Liberty: A History of Women in America," pp. 229, The Free Press, 1989.

17) Ibid, pp. 246.

18) Friedan, Betty, "The Feminine Mystique," pp. 15, Laurel, 1963.

19) Durant, Will, "The Story of Civilization: The Life of Greece, Volume II,"  pp. 467-468,  Simon & Schuster, 1939/1966.

20) Friedan, Betty, "The Feminine Mystique," pp. 26, Laurel, 1963.

21) Ibid, pp. 30.

22) Ibid, pp. 260.

23) And continues through the 1990s.  The following references are a representative example.

24) "J," "The Sensuous Woman," Dell, 1969.

25) "M," "The Sensuous Man," Dell, 1971.

26) Comfort, Alex, "The Joy of Sex: A Gourmet Guide to Love Making," Simon & Schuster, 1969.

27) Barbach, Lonnie, "Erotic Interludes," Doubleday & Company, 1986.

28) Barback, Lonnie, "Pleasures: Women Write Erotica," Harper Perennial, 1984.

29) Barbach, Lonnie, "For Yourself: The Fulfillment of Female Sexuality," Signet, 1975.

30) Barbach, Lonnie, "For Each Other: Sharing Sexual Intimacy," Signet, 1982/1984.

31) Kreidman, Ellen, "Light Her Fire: How to Ignite Passion and Excitement in the Woman You Love," Villard Books, 1991.

32) Friedan, Betty, "The Feminine Mystique," pp. 261, Laurel, 1963.

33) Ibid, pp. 262.

34) Ibid, pp. 261.

35) Durant, Will, "The Story of Civilization, Volume II, The Life of Greece," pp. 566-568, 1939 and 1966.

36) O'Neill, William L., "feminism in America: a history," Second Revision, pp. ix, Transaction Publishers, 1989.

37) Ibid, pp. x.

38) Ibid, pp. xii.

39) Ibid, pp. xiv.

40) Ibid, pp. 320.

41) Ibid, pp. xiv.

42) Ibid, pp. xv.

43) Van Kolken, Diana, "Introducing the Shakers: an explanation & directory," pp. 15 & 42, Gabriel's Horn Publishing Co., 1985.

44) O'Neill, William L., "feminism in America: a history," Second Revision, pp. 4, Transaction Publishers, 1989.

  Ibid, pp. 294-295.

45) Observe that this phenomenon has been observed again in the 1960s-1970s wherein the public perception of widespread promiscuity among young heterosexuals was more a media invention than a reality within the general population.  For an authoritative and detailed discussion of this, see Fumento, Michael, "The Death of the Sexual Revolution (Again)," The Myth of Heterosexual AIDS: How a Tragedy Has Been Distorted by the Media and Partisan Politics, pp. 225, Regnery Gateway Publisher, 1990.

46) O'Neill, William L., "feminism in America: a history," Second Revised Edition, pp. 296, Transaction Publishers, 1989.

47) Wetzstein, Cheryl, "1.6 million children home alone," The Washington Times, 20 May 1994.

48) Vobejda, Barbara and Cohn, D'Vera, "Today, a Father's Place Is in the Home," The Washington Post, 20 March 1994.

49) Dugger, Celia W., "Boy in Search of Respect Discovers How to Kill: Children Encircled by Violence Struggle Just to Survive," The New York Times, 15 May 1994.

50) O'Neill, William L., "feminism in America: a history," Second Revised Edition, pp. 302, Transaction Publishers, 1989.

51) Ibid, pp. 305.

52) Ibid, pp. 307.

53) Ibid, pp. 308.

54) Ibid, pp. 310.

55) Ibid, pp. 312.

56) Ibid, pp. 313.

57) Ibid, pp. 314.

58) Ibid, pp. 315.

59) Ibid, pp. 317.

60) Ibid, pp. 321.

61) Wilentz, Sean, "God and Man at Lynchberg," New Republic, pp.33, April 25, 1988.

62) O'Neill, William L., "feminism in America: a history," Second Revised Edition, pp. 322, Transaction Publishers, 1989.

63) O'Neill, William L., "Coming Apart: An informal history of America in the 1960s," pp. 196, Times Books, 1971.

64) Ibid, pp. 233.

65) Ibid, pp. 252.

66) Allen, Henry, "A New Phrase at the White House: Michael Lerner Preaches 'the Politics of Meaning' -- Whatever That Is -- and the First Lady Is Listening," The Washington Post, 9 June 1993.

67) Will, George F., "Punctured Moral Vanity," The Washington Post, 10 March 1994.

68) Will, George F., "Came the Revolution...," pp. 74, NEWSWEEK, 21 February 1994.

69) Kinsley, Michael, "Whose Ox Is Gored," The Washington Post, 18 March 1994.

70) Klein, Joe, "Puffing Motes Into Dust Storms: Why no one will give the Clintons the benefit of the doubt," pp. 29, NEWSWEEK, 21 March 1994.

71) Oakley, Meredith L., "With friends like these, Bill Clinton needs no enemies," The Washington Times, 18 March 1994.

72) Geyer, Georgie Anne, "Revised rules of engagement," The Washington Times, 11 March 1994.

73) Sobran, Joseph, "Human sacrifice phase," The Washington Times, 12 March 1994.

74) O'Neill, William L., "Coming Apart: An informal history of America in the 1960s," pp. 196, Times Books, 1971.

75) Ibid, pp. 270.

76) Ibid, pp. 301.

77) Malanowski, Jamie, "Racists for Feminism! The Odd History of the Civil Rights Bill," The Washington Post, 6 February 1994.

78) Reuters News Agency, "Some U.S. women made strides in '80s," The Washington Times, 3 February 1994.

79) Brock, David, "The Real Anita Hill: The Untold Story," The Free Press, 1993.

80) Farrell, Warren, "The Myth of Male Power: Why Men Are the Disposable Sex," pp. 323, Simon & Schuster, 1993.

81) Vest, Jason, "The School That's Put Sex to the Test," The Washington Post, 3 December 1993.

82) Span, Paula, "Date Rape 101," The Washington Post, 22 October 1993.

83) Ibid.

84) Ibid.

85) Will, George F., "Gothic Feminism," The Washington Post, 24 October 1993.

86) Span, Paula, "Date Rape 101," The Washington Post, 22 October 1993.

87) Will, George F., "Gothic Feminism," The Washington Post, 24 October 1993.

88) Charen, Mona, "Desperate PC gasps: Feminists will miss the mark until they acknowledge that chivalry benefited women," The Washington Times, 6 December 1993.

89) Celis III, William, "Drinking by College Women Raises New Concern," The New York Times, 16 February 1994.

90) Ibid.

91) Ibid.

92) Ibid.

93) MacKinnon, Catharine A., "Only Words," Harvard University Press, 1993.

94) Yardley, Johnathan, "Sticks and Stones, " A review of the book, "Only Words," Book World, 19 September 1993.

95) Harwood, Richard, "'Diversity Comes Home,'" The Washington Post, 27 November 1993.

96) "Gender War," CNN Television, Channel 33, 7:00 p.m., 20 February 1994.

97) Goshko, John M., "Foreign Service's Painful Passage To Looking More Like America," The Washington Post, 21 April 1994.

98) Wyatt, Petronella, "First lady triggers doubt as she drives agenda: President Rodham," The Washington Times, 2 May 1993.

99) Goshko, John M., "Foreign Service's Painful Passage To Looking More Like America," The Washington Post, 21 April 1994.

100) Levin, Doron P., "The Graying Factory: These are the workers Who bend the metal And make the cars, Rebuilding America's edge," The New York Times, 20 February 1994.

101) Atkinson, Yvonne, "Personal Conversation Concerning Hiring Practices of Consumer Power Company in the State of Michigan, September 1993.

102) Ibid.

103) Smith, Sonya, "Personal Conversation Concerning Working Mothers with Husband at Home in Flint, Michigan," September 1993.



                                                                                            Return to:



                  Home                         Women in Combat                            The Jessica Lynch Corner                  America’s Happy Place