in the world of real, substantive change for women: it is the allmale structure itself that must be subverted and destroyed. Male dominance and the antifeminism that defends it can only be repudiated by being ended; those who construct it by literally being the bricks of which it is built cannot change it by merely disputing
it. The antifeminism in exclusively male enclaves is not made humane through gestures; it is immune to modification through diplomatic goodwill. As long as a road is closed to women, it is closed to women; and that means that women cannot take that road, however nicely the men on it suggest they would not mind. The road is not only a road to power or independence or equity; it is often the
only road away from tremendous abuse. The antifeminism in an
all-male institution cannot be mitigated by attitude; nor can male
dominance— alw ays the meaning of an all-male enclave— ever accept that women are not inferior to men. The token woman carries the stigma of inferiority with her, however much she tries to dissociate herself from the other women of her sex class. In trying to stay singular, not one of them, she grants the inferiority of her sex
class, an inferiority for which she is always compensating and from
which she is never free. If the inferiority were not reckoned universally true, she of all women would not have to defend herself against the stigma of it; nor would her own com plicity in the antifeminism of the institution (through dissociation with lesser women) be a perpetual condition of her quasi acceptance. Male
dominance in society alw ays means that out of public sight, in the
private, ahistorical world of men with women, men are sexually
dominating women. The antifeminism in the all-male rulership of
society alw ays means that in the intimate world of men with
women, men are politically suppressing women.
The three social models of antifeminism— the separate-but-equal
model, the woman-superior model, and the male-dominant model
—are not inimical to one another. T hey mix and match with perfect ease, since logic and consistency are not prerequisites for keeping women down: no one need prove his case to justify the subordination of women; no one need meet a rigorous standard of
intellectual, political, or moral accountability. Most people, whatever their political convictions, seem to believe parts of each model, the pieces adding up to a whole view. Fragmented philosophical
and ideological justifications for the subordination of women exist
in a material context in which women are subordinated to men: the
subordination is self-justifying, since power subordinates and
power justifies; power both serves and consoles itself. Separate-
but-equal, woman-superior, and male-dominant antifeminism can
even be used sequentially as one whole argument for the practice of
male supremacy: men and women have different capacities and dif
ferent areas of responsibility according to sex but their functions
and attributes are of equal importance; women are morally superior
to men (a different capacity, a different area of responsibility), except when they provoke lust, in which case they have real power over men; the biological dominance of men over women is (a) counterbalanced by the real sexual power of women over men (in which case each has separate-but-equal powers) or (b) proved in that
women are too good to be as aggressive and as rudely dominant as
men or (c) naturally fair and naturally reasonable because natural
submission is the natural complement to natural dominance (and
dominance and submission are separate-but-equal spheres, submission marking the woman as morally superior unless the submission is sexually provocative, in which case her sex gives her different-but-equal power). Either this is true or it is not. Either the arguments of antifeminism, one by one or the whole lot, are true or they are not. Either there are separate-but-equal spheres or there
are not. Either women are morally better than men or they are not.
Either women have sexual power over men simply by being
women or they do not; either provoking lust is power t)r it is not.
Either men are dominant by nature or will of God or they are not.
Antifeminism says all this is true; feminism says it is not. The so-
called feminism that says some of it is true and some of it is not
