Days of Wine and Rage

by Frank Moorhouse

  Women’s Hostility – Political Weapon or Personal Poison?

  Yvonne Allen

  (from Refractory Girl, winter 1979)

  Long ago … I learned that the resentment, the anger, is impersonal. It is the disease of women in our time. I can see it in women’s faces, their voices, everyday, or in letters that come into the office. The woman’s emotion: resentment against injustice, an impersonal poison. The unlucky ones who do not know it is impersonal turn it against their men. The lucky ones, like me – fight it. It is a tiring fight. (Doris Lessing: The Golden Notebook, 1962)

  Hostility between the sexes did not arise as a result of the Women’s Liberation Movement in the late sixties. In our daily lives we are, and always have been, constantly reminded of the division between the sexes. In spite of the fact that all forces indicate, and push us towards, cohabitation with a member of the opposite sex, we are surrounded by resentments leading to hostility between men and women. A four-year-old boy says adamantly ‘I’m not playing with her – she’s just a girl!’ An eight-year-old girl moans ‘Who wants to play with boys – they are so rough and bossy!’ An Apexian (male by definition) says ‘Of course Apex is for men only – we need somewhere to get away from our wives.’ A Henpexian (the wife of an Apexian – I hear the term is changing) sighs ‘Thank goodness his holidays are over, and I can settle into the old routine again.’ Societal attitudes constantly express dislike of, boredom with, distrust of, and resentment towards, the opposite sex. What is surprising is that the anger or hostility gathering force today, and expressed openly by the women’s movement towards men, is regarded with such amazement and fear by our society, in particular its male half. The object of this paper is to examine women’s hostility towards men, to determine the extent to which it is justified, and to examine it as a valuable political weapon in the fight between the sexes.

  Hostility is not a new weapon in the political arena. It has been a driving force of all political conflicts based on economic interests, race and sex. If the hostility is justified then it can be a central and useful force within political struggle. If it is unjustified, then it can be a harmful, reactionary element within the same struggle. If hostility is to be useful, then it is important to determine in what way it can be justified. It is also crucial to realise that justified hostility felt by women towards men is as important in creating cohesion between women as class hostility and race hostility are in creating class and racial cohesion.

  When, then, can women’s hostility towards men be justified? I believe that it arises out of three factors, which may be responsible singly or conjointly for it:

  (1) Sex – This involves an understanding of the sex role (male/female) which society forces upon us, and with it the ‘natural’ (in the sense that it is expected of us and everyone tends to do it) polarisation towards the roleplay of one’s sex group, and, in its extreme form, antipathy towards the opposite sex.

  (2) Sex consciousness – By this I mean consciousness, which is not false or mistaken, of what it means in terms of oppression to be female, why this oppression exists, and where it comes from. There are three common forms of false consciousness.

  Firstly, it is believed that women are not oppressed at all, that they rather play a subordinate, supportive role as part of the natural order – an order which defies reversal and question. ‘The second sex? Well that may be so but isn’t that what they were created for’ says Dick, just as Dora might say ‘But my job as a woman is to be a wife and mother, just like my mother and her mother before her. So women just don’t compete with men.’ This form of false consciousness depends for its existence upon conformity and inertia.

  Secondly, it is argued that women are responsible for their disadvantageous position because they let it happen to them in the first place. One often hears the statements ‘They go around asking for it’ or ‘All women love to be treated as sex objects’ or ‘Liberation is one thing, but I don’t want to give up male chivalry; it’s nice being treated as something special.’

  Thirdly, it is argued that all men must be held responsible for a male-dominated society which they created, embodied in such statements as ‘Men made this rotten society and keep it going because it is in their interests to do so, so all men are the enemy.’

  These two latter forms of false consciousness disregard, I believe, the fact that people’s lives come to be dominated systematically by non-personal forces (economic, social and family structures) which they themselves, both male and female, have created over history in response to historical conditions. Sexist society is constituted by both men and women, the majority of whom act mindlessly in conformity with given social conditions. It benefits men rather than women. It is largely created by men, and sustained by men – but men who are alien, insecure, dominated, in the world they have created. To hold women responsible for their position is to ignore the forces of history that ensnare us all. To hold all men responsible is to confuse those who benefit from the system (i.e., men – who also suffer under the system, but to a far lesser extent than women) with those people (male and female) who actively resist change (i.e., the development of sex consciousness). It is crucial here to distinguish between those people who benefit from the system (i.e., men) and those people who uphold it, whether or not they are the oppressors or the oppressed. They are more likely to be men than women, but may include women, and may not include all men.

  (3) Sex loyalty – This involves loyalty to members of the same sex group. Female sex loyalty is known as ‘sisterhood’ in the women’s movement. The equivalent Australian term for male sex loyalty would, I suppose, be ‘mateship’.

  For hostility to be justified, it is necessary for all three of these factors to be operating. Let us take some examples to illustrate this.

  Jane is very much aware of her sex role, because she has grown up knowing that while boys are supposed to be active and dominant, girls are expected to be passive and submissive. She sees men getting better and more highly paid jobs, and most women working, unpaid, at home. Because of this she feels resentment (hostility) to men in many instances. She is aware of her sex and her hostility is ‘natural’.

  Mary understands her expected sex role and resents it. She has not formulated why this is so (i.e., has no sex consciousness) yet she feels at ease with other women, trusts them and sticks up for them (i.e., sex loyalty). Her hostility is ‘natural’, but not rationally based and supported, and hence, as yet, not justified.

  Elizabeth experiences the ‘natural’ hostility of Jane and Mary (i.e., is conscious of her sex role) and also understands that women as a group are oppressed by a male-dominated society (i.e., sex consciousness). But she lives and works in a male world, and does not support her sisters. She might say ‘If I want to be successful I have to do it the men’s way’ or ‘I just don’t like or trust other women’ or ‘I always get on better with men.’ If Elizabeth exhibits anti-male hostility, it is ‘natural’ hostility, but not justified, as she is denying her own sex group the loyalty it deserves.

  Phyllis understands her sex role, but suffers from a form of false consciousness, believing that women’s secondary position vis a vis men is of the natural order of things. She has no wish to change the status quo, rather tends towards conformity, and may suffer from a common ailment of the oppressed (e.g., female/worker/black) namely, inertia. Her hostility, if she exhibits it, is ‘natural’ but not justified.

  Pearl and Sheila are fully aware of and loyal to their sex group (i.e., sex and sex loyalty) but both, like Phyllis, suffer from a form of false consciousness. Pearl blames women for the position they are in. Although she feels loyalty to her sisters, she thinks it is their own fault, and it is her duty to teach them better. Should Pearl direct hostility to men, it is ‘natural’ but unjustified. If she directs hostility to other women, it is both misdirected and unjustified. Sheila, on the other hand, feels hostility towards all men because we live in a male-dominated society. She is confusing that group in our socie
ty who benefit from sexist structures (i.e., men) with the real enemies, namely those who uphold the system, either oppressors or oppressed, which may include men and women, but mainly men (who also benefit). Her hostility to all men must be seen then as ‘natural’ but unjustified.

  Alice is aware of her sex group, conscious of why females are oppressed, and loyal to her sex. Her hostility is, then, both ‘natural’ and justified.

  Hence, while Jane and Mary’s hostility may easily develop from ‘natural’ to justified hostility like Alice (given the addition of sex consciousness, and in Jane’s case, sex loyalty), Elizabeth, Phyllis, Pearl and Sheila may, and often do, act against the interests of women. Elizabeth is divorcing theory from practice, and is identifying with the oppressor rather than her own sex group, the oppressed. Phyllis, because of false consciousness, is upholding the sexist system, in spite of being one of the oppressed, by refusing to recognise her oppression. Pearl and Sheila, while recognising their oppression, and experiencing sex loyalty, are mistakenly directing their hostility – Pearl towards women, Sheila towards all men. While Elizabeth actively resists sex loyalty, and Phyllis, Pearl and Sheila actively resist sex consciousness, they are to be regarded as harmful to the women’s struggle.

  There are, then, four problem areas in women’s unjustified hostility to men. Firstly, there is hostility with sex consciousness but no sex loyalty, which gives us one type of female sell-out, or Uncle Tom of the women’s world. Secondly, there is hostility combined with false consciousness (women are not oppressed), which gives us the second type of female Uncle Tom. Thirdly, there is hostility with false consciousness (it is women’s fault) which creates sister-haters, sister-pitiers, or self-haters. Finally, hostility with false consciousness (all men are to blame) gives us the man-haters and female chauvinists.

  We have noted that all female hostility is ‘natural’. What we must attempt to do is ensure that it is also justified. The importance of justified female hostility cannot be underestimated. It marks the progression from personal poison, experienced by the unlucky women who turn their hostility against any man whatever he is like (i.e., women who understand their sex role and may or may not have sex loyalty) to an active political weapon in the fight for equality between the sexes. The rise once again of a cohesive, conscious body of women turns the hostility from the impersonal poison described by Doris Lessing in The Golden Notebook in 1962 (in isolation from other women) into an impersonal and very positive force of the seventies.

  Given that all of the hostility generated by the women’s movement today can be viewed as ‘natural’ and much of it as justified, why is it that it is greeted with such amazement and fear by men and often women? And why do so many people attempt to underestimate it?

  Firstly, female hostility is a direct attack on the status quo. It attacks the superior and advantageous position of the male, and it threatens the whole peaceful, although generally resented, position of the supposedly ‘contented’ females in our society.

  Secondly, it is out of character for women to be openly hostile. Women, after all, are supposed to be the conciliators of the human race. Suzi Caplow states that:

  a woman in our society is denied the forthright expression of her healthy anger. Her attempts at physical confrontation seem ridiculous; ‘ladies’ do a slow burn, letting out their anger indirectly in catty little phrases, often directed against a third party, especially children. A woman has learned to hold back her anger: it’s unseemly, aesthetically displeasing, and against the sweet, pliant feminine image to be angry. (Notes from the Third Year: Women’s Liberation)

  Angry and hostile women are, in fact, stepping out of their expected sex role. Hence, it is no wonder that female hostility towards men is regarded with fear and amazement.

  Thirdly, an attack frequently directed from the left at the women’s movement is that it is regarded as divisive in the class struggle – that is, if women split from men, the class struggle will be slowed down. Denise Oliver states that:

  The basic criticism that we have of our sisters in Women’s Liberation is that they shouldn’t isolate themselves, because in isolating yourselves from your brothers, you’re making the struggle separate – that’s again another division, the same way that capitalism has divided Blacks from Puerto Ricans, and Puerto Ricans from Whites, and Blacks from Whites. This sort of division has kept a revolution from taking place a long time ago. Racism has to be eliminated and that whole division of male from female has to be eliminated, and the only way you can do that is through political education. I don’t believe a group of women should get together to educate themselves, and then not go out and educate the brothers. (Palante: Young Lords Party, 1971)

  I agree that the only way to get rid of divisions cutting through the class divisions (i.e., sex and race) is through political education, but that is precisely what the women’s movement is about, and it shall come nearer to success when all female hostility is based on a combination of sex, sex consciousness and sex loyalty.

  But there is an important need for this education to take place firstly among women. Male chauvinism rears its ugly head not only among the class oppressors. It is also found in left-wing movements and in black movements. It is important, therefore, for all women to stand apart from their class and/or racial groups, and to educate themselves to objectively recognise male chauvinism everywhere. Eldridge Cleaver sums it up when he says:

  Because of the bizarre aspects of the roles and the strange influence that non-traditional contact between them has on the general society, blacks and whites, males and females, must operate almost independently of each other in order to escape from the quicksands of psychological slavery. Each – black male and black female – white female and white male – must escape first from his or her own historical traps before they can be truly effective in helping others to free themselves.

  The goal must clearly be freedom – integration is not yet feasible as a goal. It is not feasible because integration depends on mutual concepts of freedom and equality. (Soul on Ice, 1967)

  Separation from, or non-integration with, men is a stage, difficult, unpleasant, dangerous, which must be worked through. It does not mean non-communication with men. It does not mean no political education for men at the same time. Rather, it is a stage where women must attempt to channel their resentments towards justified hostility.

  Where do men stand vis a vis the women’s movement? I have already indicated that all men are not necessarily our enemies. Let us return now to the three factors operating in female hostility, namely sex, sex consciousness and sex loyalty, and take some examples.

  John is aware of his sex role, has grown up being told that boys don’t cry, men are dominant, aggressive, and so on. He does not regard women as an oppressed group (i.e., no, or false, sex consciousness), and he is a typical footy-playing, beer-swilling male (i.e., exhibits male sex loyalty). John is, in other words, a typical male chauvinist, and as such, an enemy of women, to the extent that he actively resists sex consciousness.

  Fred knows he is male, and the sex role that it implies. He is aware of the oppression of women (i.e., sex consciousness), but is loyal to his own sex (men). Fred, like Elizabeth, is divorcing theory from practice. He, too, like John, is a male chauvinist, and an enemy to the extent that he continues to divorce theory from practice.

  Tom understands his sex role. But he is aware of the oppression of women (i.e., sex consciousness), and instead of acting in his own interests, attempts to be loyal to women and act in their interests rather than his own, which would be male chauvinist. Tom faces a dilemma. If he is to be consistent, he will be justifiably hostile to his own sex group (i.e., men), a position probably containing within it elements of self-hatred, and also involving isolation from his own sex group. On top of this, his justified hostility is not ‘natural’, because that depends upon actual experience of the female sex role which he, like all other men, can never have. Tom, in fact, would have had, prior to gaining sex con
sciousness (or may still have, in spite of sex consciousness) a ‘natural’ but unjustified hostility to women. His position has contradictions written into it. It is important to recognise these for two contrasting reasons. Firstly, we must always treat him with caution, in the sense that he may easily deviate and become an enemy of the movement.

  Secondly, because his position is such a contradictory one, he must be treated by women with sympathy and understanding, to the extent that he enables non-sexist attitudes and actions to develop from the contradictions he faces.

  The Toms of the world are slowly increasing, and I believe it is crucial to accept their support and offer our encouragement to them, given the dilemma with which they are confronted. To ignore them, or direct hostility towards them, as Sheila in our previous example would, is to cut off some of our support, and to ignore the fact that the liberation of women and men is interdependent. We must accept their support critically if we are ever to move from the stage of non-integration to the stage of total revolution – a revolution of sex, class and race.

  Thus, justified female hostility to men can be seen as a useful political weapon in the women’s struggle, and with justified male hostility to men (a much rarer thing), can combine to create a cohesive force to attack sexism today.

  In conclusion, I have written this paper out of a real need to clarify for myself my own hostility towards men, in an attempt to make this hostility a positive force in the sex war. My main difficulty has been in indirectly attacking what has been for men, and many other women, a central and important concept – namely, ‘sisterhood’. I have found the concept of sisterhood fundamental in coming to terms with my own femininity. It has taught me to love, trust and respect other women. But my own experience of the conflicts and schisms within the women’s movement has led me to believe that the concept of sisterhood has elements of romanticism (as well as much beauty) written into it. I now believe that ‘sisterhood’ will remain as a superficial, although very useful, element in the women’s struggle, and will only become a cohesive force when we can all direct our hostility towards our true enemies.