whom it exploits and humiliates are unable to face it for what it is,
for what it takes from them, for what it does to them. Feminism
requires precisely what misogyny destroys in women: unimpeachable bravery in confronting male power. Despite the impossibility of it, there is such bravery: there are such women, in some periods
millions upon millions of them. If male supremacy survives every
effort of women to overthrow it, it will not be because of biology
or God; nor will it be because of the force and power of men per
se. It will be because the will to liberation was contaminated, un
dermined, rendered ineffectual and meaningless, by antifeminism:
by specious concepts of equality based on an evasion of what the
sex-class system really is. The refusal to recognize the intrinsic despotism of the sex-class system means that that despotism is inevitably incorporated into reform models of that same system: in this, antifeminism triumphs over the w ill to liberation. The refusal to
recognize the unique abuses inherent in sex labor (treating sex labor as if it were sex-neutral, as if it were not intrinsically part of sex oppression and inseparable from it) is a function of antifeminism; the acceptance of sex labor as appropriate labor for women marks the trium ph of antifeminism over the w ill to liberation. The
sentimental acceptance of a double standard of human rights, responsibilities, and freedom is also the triumph of antifeminism over the w ill to liberation; no sexual dichotomy is compatible with real
liberation. And, most important, the refusal to demand (with no
compromise being possible) one absolute standard of human dignity is the greatest trium ph of antifeminism over the w ill to liberation. W ithout that one absolute standard, liberation is mush; feminism is frivolous and utterly self-indulgent. Without that one
absolute standard as the keystone of revolutionary justice, feminism has no claim to being a liberation movement; it has no revolutionary stance, goal, or potential; it has no basis for a radical reconstruction of society; it has no criteria for action or organization; it has no moral necessity; it has no inescapable claim on the conscience of “mankind”; it has no philosophical seriousness; it has
no authentic stature as a human-rights movement; it has nothing to
teach. Also, without that one absolute standard, feminism has no
chance whatsoever of actually liberating women or destroying the
sex-class system . Refusing to base itself on a principle of universal
human dignity, or compromising, retreating from that principle,
feminism becomes that which exists to stop it: antifeminism. No
liberation movement can accept the degradation of those whom it
seeks to liberate by accepting a different definition of dignity for
them and stay a movement for their freedom at the same time.
(Apologists for pornography: take note. ) A universal standard of
human dignity is the only principle that completely repudiates sex-
class exploitation and also propels all of us into a future where the
fundamental political question is the quality of life for all human
beings. Are women being subordinated to men? There is insufficient dignity in that. Are men being prostituted too? What is human dignity?
Two elements constitute the discipline of feminism: political,
ideological, and strategic confrontation with the sex-class system—
with sex hierarchy and sex segregation—and a single standard of
human dignity. Abandon either element and the sex-class system is
unbreachable, indestructible; feminism loses its rigor, the toughness of its visionary heart; women get swallowed up not only by misogyny but also by antifeminism—facile excuses for exploiting women, metaphysical justifications for abusing women, and shoddy apologies for ignoring the political imperatives of women.
One other discipline is essential both to the practice of feminism
and to its theoretical integrity: the firm, unsentimental, continuous
recognition that women are a class having a common condition.
This is not some psychological process of identification with
women because women are wonderful; nor is it the insupportable
assertion that there are no substantive, treacherous differences
among women. This is not a liberal mandate to ignore what is
cruel, despicable, or stupid in women, nor is it a mandate to ignore
dangerous political ideas or allegiances of women. This does not
