Scarlet Friedman & Elizabeth Sarah (eds): On the Problem of Men, The Women's Press, 1982, £4.95
On the Problem of Men brings together papers from two feminist conferences both organised by the Women's Research & Resources Centre: the first 'Heterosexuality, Couples and Parenthood' in 1979 and the second 'The Women's Liberation Movement & Men' in 1980. Parts are very passé and certainly many feminists reading the book will find sections to yawn at. But at the same time certain essays, or lines within essays, come across as a breath of fresh air — memories of the stimulation and exhilaration of discussing new ideas for the first time. Hopes for change.
Underlying both conferences was a steady stream of radical feminism with only a smattering of socialist feminist analysis. Perhaps this reflected where feminists were 'at' during this period. While some were becoming involved in campaigns — anti-Corrie was big at the time — others continued to try to come to terms with the problems that had been thrown up in the previous decade of interaction between socialist feminism and revolutionary feminism.
One of these problems was MEN. And obviously revolutionary and radical feminists, as they were grappling with theories of patriarchy, were the ones making the running at these conferences. Socialist feminists, especially those from revolutionary socialist organisations, were few and far between and this is reflected in the essays.
The two conferences deal with different aspects of the 'problem'. The first tackles the institutions of marriage, heterosexuality, coupledom and the family and the role of men and patriarchy therein. The second focuses on feminist forms of organisation, on the importance of autonomy, and fundamentally on our relationships personally and politically with men.
Two conferences — two aspects. The problem of men for women, as individuals, and the problem of men for women, as a movement.
In the first half of the book, analyses of rape, marital violence, sexual abuse of children and pornography take us back to the embryonic ideas of revolutionary feminists which have developed over the last three years especially within Women Against Violence Against Women action groups. Likewise, sexuality (in its gendered formation and its control by science), motherhood and fatherhood are all explored. One essay which leapt out of the book at me — in fond memory of a long lost topic — and one of the few within a socialist feminist framework considers the politics of monogamy: 'Monogamy by its very rules, produces and enacts sets of priorities that connote the power and control which capitalist relations demand.' Privatisation, individualism, mysticism, competition, non-collectivity ... the essay explains how as socialists we need to challenge more than just the state: 'The personal is political since social relations comprise roles which are not simply imposed by a coercive state or some eternal [illegible].'
One of the strengths of the book is the re-emergence of personal politics — discussion of our relationships with men and their [illegible], especially in heterosexual [illegible] feminists; our relationships [illegible] work with gay men and our feelings about the [illegible].
However among this myriad of essays, the concept of male power as a force in and of itself predominates. The first essay in each part sets the tone and acts as a theoretical framework for the discussions that follow: both refute a class analysis of women's oppression, rejecting the 'belief that class oppression was more fundamental than the domination of women by men' and pointing to the 'inadequacies of the marxist economic reductionist approach', inadequacies which 'have led many feminists to seek the cause of male domination of women in some determining factor other than the economic system.'
In 'Heterosexuality, Couples and Parenthood' by Scarlet Friedman, three sets of theories are looked at: biological, functional and marxist. The author concludes that women's oppression cannot be explained by either 'biology, economics, psychology or sexuality per se'. Economics is seen as insufficient when 'men (are) creating and perpetuating their position ... (knowingly or unknowingly, but benefiting all the same)'. In this first essay Friedman raises some interesting insights into marxist analyses; 'The sexual division of labour is the first form of the division of labour ... Sexual division and exploitation can thus be seen to be at the root of marxist theory.' However along with most of the authors she fails to explain why men took power and frustratingly leaves the reader with a set of open-ended questions (which were obviously of more use in the conference!)
Likewise in 'Female performers on a male stage' Elizabeth Sarah, exploring the first women's movement (1890-1930), concludes that male power and the lack of women's autonomy were the reasons for its failure. This analysis completely counterposes a patriarchal analysis to a class one — seemingly if only women had recognised and fought for autonomy, all would have been well: an alternative to the 'line' that blames the movement's failure on not making links with the labour movement and uniting in their 'class' interests. Both explanations seem embarassingly simplistic and inadequate — a feeling which re-emerges when reading 'Male feminists and divided women'. According to Diana Leonard: 'We do know that gender cuts across race and class.'
Agreed! But we also know that class cuts across gender and race (just think of Mrs Thatcher and Mrs Gandhi) and (even) that race cuts across gender and class (think of all the black women who are alienated by and critical of the insensitiveness of the 'white' women's movement — and likewise black trade unionists of the 'white' labour movement). While reading most of these essays I longed for a more rounded approach that explained how to challenge patriarchal, racist, class society and didn't simply collapse all into one.
None of the essays explained why our society is 'run by men' and where 'male power' sprung from. I kept hoping for an insight into the material reasons for male power and obviously radical feminist frameworks (often refuting marxist materialism) wouldn't provide that! But I felt disappointed in analyses that kept coming back to male power as an inexplicable force that existed per se. It seemed that human megalomania was innate and men were the ones who got to harness it as they had the physical strength and women were incapacitated by child-bearing and rearing.
I kept wanting expansions on the ideas and more explanations — but there again, collections of conference papers are not intended to be definitive statements. The book is useful to make one explore radical feminist analysis and understand why so many women these days (socialists included) agree with Amanda Sebestyn when she says: 'I want men to stop being men any more.' But if you want ideas on why confronting male supremacy is crucial for socialists too and suggestions on what to do you are better advised to read Michele Barrett's Women's Oppression Today or the essays in Lydia Sargent's collection The Unhappy Marriage of Marxism and Feminism.
Judy Watson is women's officer in Camden Council responsible for campaigns, and an activist in the women's liberation movement.