Betty Friedan and her Lies
Betty Friedan was one of the founders of the National Organization for
Women (NOW) and a co-signer of the original (1966) Agenda of NOW.
Judging from some of the statements that the original Agenda of NOW contained, it may seem
that what feminism was about in those days was nothing more than an attempt to get
women a place in the sun. The 1966 Agenda of NOW stated:
It was further said that:
"NOW is dedicated to the proposition that women,
first and foremost, are human beings, who, like all other people in our society, must have
the chance to develop their fullest human potential. We believe that women can achieve
such equality only by accepting to the full the challenges and responsibilities
they share with all other people in our society, as part of the decision-making mainstream
of American political, economic and social life." [my emphasis -WHS]
That doesn't sound so bad at first glance. But regardless of what
it sounds like, it is but one way by which to attempt to entice women, the majority of
whom are found in poll after poll to prefer to be stay-at-home, married moms, to enter the
work force. Why would anyone promote an idea that most women don't like? The
answer to that question may be found in the fact that the goal to bring women into the
work force is an ancient goal of communism and that, as Smith College professor Daniel
Horowitz states in his new book "Betty Friedan and the Making of the Feminine
Mystique" Betty Friedan was well into her thirties a devout and active functionary of
the Communist Party of the U.S.A..
"With a life span lengthened to nearly 75 years it is no
longer either necessary or possible for women to devote the greater part of their lives to
child- rearing; yet childbearing and rearing which continues to be a most important part
of most women's lives-still is used to justify barring women from equal professional and
economic participation and advance." and:
"We do not accept the traditional assumption that a woman
has to choose between marriage and motherhood, on the one hand, and serious participation
in industry or the professions on the other." and further:
"WE REJECT the current assumptions that a man must carry
the sole burden of supporting himself, his wife, and family, and that a woman is
automatically entitled to lifelong support by a man upon her marriage, or that
home and family are primarily woman's world and responsibility-hers, to dominate-his to
support. We believe that a true partnership between the sexes demands a different
concept of marriage, an equitable sharing of the responsibilities of home and children and
of the economic burdens of their support. We believe that proper recognition should be
given to the economic and social value of homemaking and child-care. To these ends, we
will seek to open a reexamination of laws and mores governing marriage and divorce, for we
believe that the current state of "half-equity" between the sexes
discriminates against both men and women, and is the cause of much unnecessary hostility
between the sexes." [my emphasis -WHS]
As per a
book review by
professor David Horowitz (no relation), published in Salon Magazine Jan. 1999:
The review by professor Horowitz states further:
...the author of that book establishes beyond doubt that the woman who has always
presented herself as a typical suburban housewife until she began work on her
groundbreaking book was in fact nothing of the kind. In fact, under her maiden name,
Betty Goldstein, she was a political activist and professional propagandist for the
Communist left for over a decade before the publication of "The Feminist
Mystique" launched the modern women's movement.
Already in the original Communist Manifesto
produced by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels in 1848/49 it was made clear that
no society could be successfully restructured unless all established cultural
and moral traditions would be abolished amongst the objectives of Marx and
Engels was the liberation of women from the servitude to
commerce and industry that 19th century feminists had fought so hard and successfully to
Professor Horowitz documents that Friedan was from her college days, and until her
mid-30s, a Stalinist Marxist, the political intimate of the leaders of America's Cold War
fifth column and for a time even the lover of a young Communist physicist working on
atomic bomb projects in Berkeley's radiation lab with J. Robert Oppenheimer. Her
famous description of America's suburban family household as "a comfortable
concentration camp" in "The Feminine Mystique" therefore had more to do
with her Marxist hatred for America than with any of her actual experience as a housewife
or mother. (Her husband, Carl, also a leftist, once complained that his wife
"was in the world during the whole marriage," had a full-time maid and
"seldom was a wife and a mother").
It is fascinating that Friedan not only
felt the need to lie about her real views and life experience then, but still feels the
need to lie about them now. Although Horowitz, the author of the new biography, is a
sympathetic leftist, Friedan refused to cooperate with him once she realized he was going
to tell the truth about her life as Betty Goldstein."
Hence, one of the major goals of all communist leaders had been to
destroy families and to bring women into the work force. "Free love,"* as sexual promiscuity was called then, became
"sexual liberation" and today's "sexual freedom." It is the primary
lure by which communists attempt to "liberate" women from the bonds of social
convention, and Betty Friedan, although not an important leader of communism, promoted the
same goal by calling for the inclusion of women in the work force.
introduction to his web site at which Carl
Friedan recounts the incidents of terror and violence that were such a large part of his
marriage to Betty Friedan, he states:
No matter how happy Betty Friedan may be about the misery she is causing
her ex-husband, what is there to be proud about in seeing that one's ex-wife brought about
that a good portion of the Communist Manifesto became reality in the U.S.A.? Can
what has been achieved in American Society, indeed, in much of the world, through the
Carl Friedan's ex-wife be that easily separated from the fact that it was his
marriage to her and the funds and security that he contributed to that marriage gave Betty
Friedan the social and financial means by which she could pursue the implementation of the
destruction of not only
Carl Friedan's family but a very large portion of all of the
families in civilization?
|I am incensed about misleading allegations of spousal abuse made by my
ex-wife, Betty Friedan. They are all delusions, but in challenging these flights of
fantasy I carefully make a huge divide between, one, her historical role in leading the
feminist cause and, two, her current revamping of our personal history. I am proud of what
she did for the world, but am appalled by her misrepresenting our personal family past
with outright falsehoods just to satisfy her own legacy.
Carl Friedan is not entirely gracious in his account of the history of
his marriage to the violent Betty Friedan. He states that he loves beautiful women
and promises to deliver an explanation of why he got married to a woman who was, in his
words making no bones about it, quite plainly ugly. However, although I read his
account fairly thoroughly, I could not find any evidence that he made good on his
promise. The only comment that I could find that comes close is that he stated that
Betty Friedan was clearly violent in their relationship before they even got married, so
that he should have had plenty of warning.
However, what he doesn't touch on at all is the fact that he, too, was
involved in communist activism at that time. He implies that Betty Friedan got the
better deal in their marriage because he took her out of a dirty one-room factory loft in
New York, where she struggled, writing for a newspaper. He would have done a
considerable service if he would have told which newspaper she was writing for. It
would perhaps also given us the explanation as to why they got involved with one
another. They shared the same ideology.
The newspaper she was writing for, so Daniel Horowitz
reports in the biography mentioned by David Horowitz (Feminism's Dirty Secret) was
a communist newspaper. Betty Friedan, as a professional Stalinist-Marxist
propagandist of many years, says Horowitz, was
Carl Friedan's version of the story must be true to a
considerable extent, because, as David Horowitz reports in
Feminism's Dirty Secret,
|Not at all a neophyte when it came to the "woman question" (the
phrase itself is a marxist construction), she was certainly familiar with the writings of
Engels, Lenin, and Stalin on the subject and had written about it herself as a journalist
for the official publication of the communist-controlled United Electrical Workers union.
|The ex-Mrs. Friedan, meanwhile, has softened her charges, telling Good Morning
America, "I almost wish I hadn't even written about it, because it's been
sensationalized out of context. My husband was no wife-beater, and I was no passive victim
of a wife-beater. We fought a lot, and he was bigger than me."
how much of the communist ideology that was such large part of Betty
Friedan's life and, indeed, formed her life, made it into the ideology of the oppressive
feminism that now covers all aspects of our lives, of society and civilization and
threatens to smother us all? Far-fetched? Judge for yourself.
|...as Smith College professor Daniel Horowitz (no relation) revealed in his book Betty
Friedan and the Making of the Feminist Mystique, Betty was not very candid about
the facts of her own life and the sources of her radical perspective. She was hardly a
suburban housewife when she wrote those words, but a twenty-five year veteran of
professional journalism in the Communist Left, where she had been thoroughly indoctrinated
in the politics of "the woman question" and specifically the idea that women
Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels stated in the Communist
The bourgeois sees in his wife nothing but an instrument of production. He
hears that the instruments of production are to be exploited cooperatively and naturally
can't think of anything else but that the lot of cooperatives will also affect the women
The USSR, more so than any other nation in the world, of course
implemented the goals of Marx and Engels to the fullest. Read how it
was done there and how far it got with that program of social engineering,
so that you fully understand the foundations of Betty Friedan's motivation
for promoting communism in the form of women's rights. See
Matriarchy in USSR
— off-site, about five minutes of reading.
There was no exploitation of Betty Friedan in her marriage to
Friedan. She most certainly wasn't for him what anyone would call an instrument of
production. If anyone got exploited, it was Carl Friedan. He was held hostage,
and had no more of a chance to escape than any of the millions of battered husbands who
ever fell victim to the battered husband syndrome.
Just like the feminists, who base so much of their ideology on the
Communists Manifesto, so Marx and Engels quite clearly envisioned the logical progression
after the destruction of the family and its replacement with universal prostitution (now
it should more properly be considered universal promiscuity). Marx and Engels said
in their manifesto:
Nobody should have any illusions that the feminists consider any of the
ideas presented in the Communist Manifesto to be outdated and archaic. The feminists
use it as their bible. Erin Pizzey tells, when she speaks of her
experiences with the radical feminists that usurped the
women's shelter movement, that a commonly stocked book on their book shelves was Mao's
Little Red Book, and that Mao's face was ever-present on posters in their living
rooms. Mao most definitely based his ideas on the Communist Manifesto.
The communists have been accused, furthermore, that they want to abolish the
fatherland, the national identity. The workers don't have a fatherland. It
isn't possible to rob them of what they don't have. Because the proletariat must
first of all conquer political rule, elevate itself to a national class (45), constitute
itself as a nation, it will itself be national, even though by no means in the meaning of
Do Betty Friedan's and NOW's objectives differ from, say, Mao tse
tung's? This is what Mao had to say about the structure of society with respect to
Just in case you should be wondering what the aim of all of this was, it
is no more than what Marx, Engels and today's feminists clamour for: the liberation
of women from the drudgery of housework and from the raising of children. But why
would anybody be crazy enough to fight revolutions over that and to turn all of society on
its head? Well, the answer is in the rest of Chapter 31 of The Little Red
Book. Here are just two more quotes from that chapter.
A man in China is usually subjected to the domination of three systems of authority
[political authority, clan authority and religious authority].... As for women, in
addition to being dominated by these three systems of authority, they are also dominated
by the men (the authority of the husband). These four authorities - political, clan,
religious and masculine - are the embodiment of the whole feudal-patriarchal ideology and
system, and are the four thick ropes binding the Chinese people, particularly the
peasants. How the peasants have overthrown the political authority of the landlords in the
countryside has been described above. The political authority of the landlords is the
backbone of all the other systems of authority. With that overturned, the clan authority,
the religious authority and the authority of the husband all begin to totter.... As to the
authority of the husband, this has always been weaker among the poor peasants because, out
of economic necessity, their womenfolk have to do more manual labour than the women of the
richer classes and therefore have more say and greater power of decision in family
matters. With the increasing bankruptcy of the rural economy in recent years, the basis
for men's domination over women has already been undermined. With the rise of the peasant
movement, the women in many places have now begun to organize rural women's associations;
the opportunity has come for them to lift up their heads, and the authority of the husband
is getting shakier every day. In a word, the whole feudal-patriarchal ideology and system
is tottering with the growth of the peasants' power.
"Report on an Investigation of the Peasant Movement in
(March 1927), Selected Works, Vol. I, pp. 44-46.
[The Little Red Book, Chapter 31. WOMEN,
Look it up. It's only a little more than one page.]
Carl Friedan's account of his marriage to Betty Friedan leaves no
doubt in anyone's mind that he was the one being oppressed, even terrorized. Any
claims to the contrary are outrageous lies.
[In agricultural production] our fundamental task is to adjust the use of labour power
in an organized way and to encourage women to do farm work.
"Our Economic Policy" (January 23, 1934), Selected Works,
Vo1. I, p. 142.
With the completion of agricultural cooperation, many co-operatives are finding
themselves short of labour. It has become necessary to arouse the great mass of women who
did not work in the fields before to take their place on the labour front....China's women
are a vast reserve of labour power. This reserve should be tapped in the struggle to build
a great socialist country.
Introductory note to "Solving the Labour Shortage by Arousing the
Women to Join in Production" (1955), The Socialist Upsurge in China's
Countryside, Chinese ed., Vol. II.
Just as Betty Friedan lied persistently about her subordinate role as a
stay-at-home wife and mother, she is also quite persistent in lying about other aspects of
her marriage to Carl Friedan.
That upset Carl Friedan so much that he felt it necessary to establish
a web site at which he gives his own
account of his life with his violent ex-wife. Consider that not a single
one of the claims that Betty Friedan ever made about his violence was ever brought into
court and that Carl Friedan never has been found guilty of committing any of the violent
acts his ex-wife accuses him of. Consider also that Carl Friedan never ever dreamed
of bringing any charges against his ex-wife for any of the numerous incidents of personal
injury and destruction of property she committed. Not only that, but,
as mentioned above, even Betty Friedan is now making
Carl Friedan is still being terrorized, although this time he may not have
to fear for his life and health any longer but only for his reputation. Consider
that he is now 80 and that the quarter of the life that he spent with his ex-wife still
has a controlling influence on his life. The reality of his marriage to Betty
Friedan was like this:
|FLASH - May 11, 2000 - The New York Times in a long Betty interview repeats
Betty's lies of physical abuse as they appear in her new book, Life So Far. By this time
Betty tries even more desperately to withdraw the book's most blatant charges, knowing
they are false. When questioned about the abuse issue, the Times now reports her saying,
" Don't make too much of that. He was no wife beater and I was no passive
victim." She's slowly moving toward the truth.
PHONE CALL: (April 28) - Betty phoned me to say she didn't realize that the press
would focus on these passages of her book and that she was "livid" at GEORGE
Magazine for doing so. I hurriedly, but politely, hung up on her.
FLASH! - April 25, 2000 - GEORGE Magazine (May issue) has just run a cover story
claiming that I beat up on my then wife, Betty Friedan. One of my friends, a
confirmed male chauvenist pig, cheered, "Bravo! I hope you gave her a good uppercut
for me." Another one chimed in "If you clipped her, she probably deserved
Ok, back off, fellows, it never happened. Betty is fantazising and
GEORGE accepted her story of abuse as real rather than what it was - an S&M
fantasy....TIME's coverage of the book makes her out a sexpot. Are they
kidding? Betty Friedan a sexpot? Come on, now! Let's be sane! In
all 19 years of marriage she never gave me a blow job. That's a sexpot?
ARTICLE - April 24, 2000 - Back at the beginning of winter a year or so ago , the
net's Salon magazine reported Betty was at an airport heading somewhere when her bag
accidentally flew open and a slew of S&M magazines spilled out. You figure this
one out. The article is really there somewhere in the Salon archives.
In the section "The
Big Picture" at his web site, Carl Friedan tells:
|In the period between The Mystique and our splitting ('63-'67) she was a weight loss
speed freak which compounded the venting of her violent temper. Betty already tottered on
a thin line just this side of sanity. Amphetamines intensified it.
Being with her was like walking a field of land mines. Bang! She'd
explode unexpectedly, often out of the clear blue sky with no provocation at all.
She was the most violent person I have ever known. I've seen women frightened by
her. Men, too. In my desperate attempts to subdue and bring her frequent hysterial
attacks and screaming under control we would both get hurt. This explains why she
had an occasional black eye and my face was scarred by deep gouges. Did you ever try
to fend off the attack of a wild, man-eating tiger? Spousal abuse has no
There are many more accounts of Betty Friedan's violence in the chapter
"Living with Insanity."
Here are a few excerpts:
|A year or so ago I had dinner with Betty and, always on the make, she
asked me, "Are you still as good in bed as you use to be?"
"Better," I answered. I only wish. The plumbing goes down hill by
80. At least mine did - somewhat. I can't talk for Strom Thurmond.
Betty and I had become friendly again in our old ages and so I was reluctant
to talk publicly about the dark side of our relationship. Not too long ago my bowels would
squirm at the mere mention of her name, but the ulcers went into remission in recent years
as we shared mutual delight at the success of our three offspring, their strong marriages
and the nine grandchildren they produced. I never expected to swear at her again, and
would not have, not until this new book of hers came out attacking me. I was quite
surprised, but it was in character for her to hit below the belt. So all bets are off.
Marquis of Queensbury rules be damned.
Quite vivid in my mind is a midnight in about 1967 - a year or so before
Betty and I separated for good. We were living at our Dakota apartment then - Betty
disagreed with something I said (that's all it took), went into one of her raging
uncontrollable fits, screaming , her face twisted in hate and insane anger, "You
fucking no good prick you, you no-good bastard, you fucking bastard, " meanwhile
sprinting into the kitchen. Back she came straight at me brandishing two large kitchen
knives. "You fucking Goddamn sonofabitch, I'm going to cut your fucking cock off -
your big cock it doesn't mean a thing to me." At this I calmly picked up a kitchen
chair, nailed her to the wall like a lion-tamer and took the knives away. And that was
just a minor incident during that period when her explosive personality was further
inflamed by amphetamines she was taking for weight loss, reinforced by alcohol.
This latter episode would have taken place at about the time that Betty
Friedan was working on getting N.O.W. off the ground, perhaps just about at the time she
was finalizing the draft of the 1966 Agenda of N.O.W., in her attempts to improve the lot
|There are enough witnesses to the kind of behavior I describe and also
witnesses to her raging fits and near-raging fits to make all this credible even to her
most loyal followers. There were often eye-witnesses to the kind of episodes related here
but mostly not, because they occurred behind the four walls.
In the summer of 1963 we rented Teddy White's bay cottage in Fair Harbor
on Fire Island, a long sliver of barrier beach on the ocean....
A really terrible episode occurred when in late summer of 1966 we made a
weekend visit to my parents in Sharon, Mass. ...
...After a late barbecue dinner we, Pepi and Mark all relaxed and soon it was
eleven o'clock. I started thinking of bed. Mark and Pepi had already gone to sleep
upstairs. And then it seemed like the house exploded.
Betty went wild. I do not remember what motivated this fit, or what preceded
it, if anything. She could never stand being contradicted, even on the tiniest detail. She
fought with nearly everyone. Argued with everyone - sooner or later. It could have been a
political discussion that set it off or someone's assertion that she disagreed with. Or,
it is possible, she might have sixth-sensed that I was attracted to our female guest. I
made no obvious sign of that, but Betty always reacted hostilely to pretty women. Possibly
it was as simple as that.
This episode started, as usual, with the decibel range of her voice rising. I
tried as usual to calm her down. That did not deter her from turning her hysterical
screaming into insane action. With the unbridled fury of a madman, she seized a narrow
lamp base, the shade shoved to the floor, and proceeded to dart through the house using
the lamp as a club, smashing the window panes one after the other after the other,
screaming a stream of foul epithets at me. A cacophony of screeching and breaking glass
resounded throughout the house."
I took off, fled from there, something I instinctively did, if possible, when
she went into one of her crazy spells. My not being present deprived her of her target,
often diminshing her fury....
It took all that day and another for a glazier to repair the windows
27 panes of glass. I remember the number 27, often wondering if Teddy White ever
noticed and what he thought of his new glass.
That next morning no reaction from her. It was as if it had never happened.
Except for the glazier's putty knife at work, life went on as usual. Pepi and brother Mark
left that day and never returned to visit us at Fire Island again.
Saturday night we left the kids at the motel to have dinner with an old
friend of mine and his wife from Hingham, an historic New England town about twenty miles
from Sharon. ...
Bob and Dottie had just returned from Yugoslavia where he had been invited by
the government to confer with the blueberry commissar of that country. ...
At dinner that night he regaled us with a story of their trip. They had met
the Yugoslav blueberry commissar in Debrovnik, ... The commissar arrived at the meeting on
the following day with a volunteer translator in tow. It turned out to be Nikita
After coffee and bill paying we said our goodbyes. We got in our car on the
parking lot outside the restaurant and I started driving onto the highway back to the
motel when Betty suddenly started screaming at me, "You never took me to Europe...you
cheap sonofabitch, you never took me to Europe". I remember those words distinctly -
they are etched in my brain because this episode was the most harrowing of any I have ever
experienced in my life.
There had been no time for any argument to develop. We had little if any
conversation in the interval between leaving the restaurant and reaching the car. This was
truly spontaneous combustion.
The meaning of what she screamed is difficult to recall because it came out
of her in such uncontrollable frenzied bursts. None of it made sense.
I slowed down and tried to calm her. "For Christsakes, Betty, stop this,
stop this. What is this about?" But she was beyond logic. She was raging about this
Europe thing, completely out of control.
With no letup in her fury she suddenly propped her back against the passenger
side door and started kicking me furiously - while I was speeding along the highway. Then
she lunged at my face with her nails. I felt my shirt being ripped and my chest bloodied.
That's how these fits usually happened - right out of the blue. Then,
suddenly she opened the car door and threatened to jump out. "I'm getting out of this
car", she yelled. That was a scenario I had become use to, her opening the passenger
side door while I was driving - it had happened a number of times before.
This was sheer hell - here I am with my hands on the wheel, driving through
the darkness, being furiously attacked by a raging woman, and the passenger door hanging
out by its hinges. I managed somehow to hold her off with my right hand and to hold on to
the wheel with my left. This is how I made my way back to the motel.
The moment I stopped in front of our bungalows she rushed out of the car
running up and down the highway shrieking wildly. I went looking for her for fear she
could get killed by the speeding cars, but lost track of her in the pitch black of the
I was standing by the curb peering into the darkness when suddenly she
reappeared and started mauling me all over again with her claws. I fended her off, pushing
her away as I did during these fits. That's how she acquired her "black eyes",
just being pushed away. Eyes and faces are easily bruised. It doesn't take much, Just
pushing her away can do it. It's like ribs -- it just takes a few pounds of pressure to
crack a rib. In her case I often had to use some force simply to contain her.
I fled to the motel rooms....She came screaming after me pounding on the door
hysterically, and then, I really couldn't believe this - I guess maybe I could - I heard
the screen on the window tear and there she was climbing through the window, breaking the
screen on her way. She landed on the floor, but by that time I had ran out of the cabin
into the night. She followed me threatening to call the police. I was too embarrassed to
ever call the police. But in this state nothing embarrassed her. "Here's a dime"
I said, "Go right ahead and call them" By that time it was I who needed the
police. The police finally came and took us both to the Sharon police station.
The sargeant at the desk looked me over, pointed to my gougings and asked,
" Where did you get all that?' " It's pretty self-evident, isn't it" I
answered. My wounds were far greater than hers. While she had minor bruises, I had
bleeding wounds. He separated us - I went to my folks' house, she to the motel. This
incident has to be among the records of the Sharon Police Dept. I am quite sure it was
late summer of 1966.
The next day she acted as though nothing had happened. I often thought that
she remembered nothing of these episodes much like an epileptic who is not consious during
a seizure. She only knew what was in the present - that she had some black and blue marks
and I think she actually believes to this day that she was abused, that I unilaterally
beat her up. That was surely part of her insanity. It certainly wasn't sane.
However, what Carl Friedan perhaps doesn't realize is that if any of these
incidents would have happened not even 30 years later he would have been arrested, likely
thrown into and kept in jail until the time of his trial and would most likely have been
barred from receiving any access to his children by having a restraining order placed
against him all on account of the successes his ex-wife had in promoting women's
Well, in love and war all things are fair. What nobler war could
there be than the destruction of our families. If Betty Friedan's own family got
destroyed in the process, and if a few or a lot of lies got told during and
after the destruction of the Friedan family, what does it matter? It comes with the
The New York Times promoted and published very biased reporting about
Joseph Stalin's mass murder of Russian peasants. More than 14 million died, but the
Times reported very favourably on the evolution of the "workers' paradise."
Privately, Duranty, the New York Times' correspondent in Russia at the time,
stated that at least 10 million Russians had deliberately been starved to death, but said,
"They're only Russians." However, in connection with that Duranty also
coined the phrase that has become very popular, "You can't make an omelette without
Officially, though, he manufactured (with the help of people like George
Bernard Shaw) the myth that great and benevolent social changes were taking place in
Russia. That's obviously a tradition that Betty Friedan perpetuates, this time in
relation to getting women and not just mere workers "a better deal." As I
said, even if the war is being waged against our families, in love and war all things are
fair although that appears to be true only in the minds of some people who
apparently don't possess a full set of functioning faculties.
Nevertheless, after reading Carl Friedan's account of being married to a
terrorist, I got the firm impression that, as Erin Pizzey said in her discussion paper
"Working With Violent Women," one should not
negotiate with terrorists and just keep his distance.
The consequences of our refusal to concede female
contributions to violence are manifold. It affects our capacity to promote ourselves
as autonomous and responsible beings. It affects our ability to develop a literature
about ourselves that encompasses the full array of human emotions and experience. It
demeans the right our victims have to be valued. And it radically impedes our
ability to recognize dimensions of power that have nothing to do with formal structures or
patriarchy. Perhaps above all, the denial of women's aggression profoundly
undermines our attempts as a culture to understand violence, to trace its causes and to
She Was Bad
Violent Women and the Myth of Innocence
* Free love, as the early communists called it, is today called
See The Russian
Effort to Abolish Marriage, The Atlantic Monthly, July 1926
a more exhaustive history of the evolution and destructive social impact of
Soviet divorce laws)
See also the Table of Contents for feminism
and related issues
Posted 2000 06 08
2000 06 09 (to insert picture of Betty Friedan)
2000 06 10 (to incorporate quotes from David Horowitz' Feminism's
2001 01 31 (format changes)
2001 07 26 (added reference to Free Love)
2002 12 22 (format changes)