In the early years of the women’s movement, an article in Psychology Today called "Women as Nigger" quickly led to feminist activists (myself included) making parallels between the oppression of women and blacks.28 Men were characterized as the oppressors, the "master," the "slaveholders". Black congresswoman Shirley Chisholm’s statement that she faced far more discrimination as a woman than as a black was widely quoted.
The parallel allowed the hard-earned rights of the civil rights movement to be applied to women. The parallels themselves had more than a germ of truth. But what none of us realized was how each sex was the other’s slave in different ways and therefore neither sex was the other’s “nigger" ("nigger" implies a one-sided oppressiveness)
If masculists had made such a comparison, they would have had every bit as strong a case as feminists. The comparison is useful because it is not until we understand how men were also women’s servants that we get a clear picture of the sexual diiision of labor and therefore the fallacy of comparing either sex to "nigger.” For starters. .
Blacks were forced, via slavery, to risk their lives in cotton fields so that whites might benefit economically while blacks died prematurely. Men were forced, via the draft, to risk their lives on battlefields so that everyone else might benefit economically while men died prematurely The disproportionate numbers of blacks and males in war increases both blacks’ and n^ales’ likelihood of experiencing posttraumatic stress, of becoming killers
in postwar civilian life as well, and of dying earlier. Both slaves and men died to make the world safe for freedom — someone else’s.
Slaves had their own children involuntarily taken away from them; men have their own children involuntarily taken away from them. We tell women they have the right to children and tell men they have to fight for children.
Blacks were forced, via slavery, into society’s most hazardous jobs; men are forced, via socialization, into society’s most hazardous Jobs. Both slaves and men constituted almost 100 percent of the ‘‘death professions.” Men still do.
When slaves gave up their seats for whites, we called it subservience; when men give up their seats for women, we call it politeness. Similarly, we called it a symbol of subservience when slaves stood up as their masters entered a room, but a symbol of politeness when men stand up as a woman enters the room. Slaves bowed before their masters, in traditional cultures, men still bow before women.29 The slave helped the master put on his coat, the man helped the woman put on her coat. He still does. These symbols of deference and subservience are common with slaves to masters and with men to women.
Blacks are more likely than whites to be homeless; men are more likely than women to be homeless. Blacks are more likely than whites to be in prison; men are about twenty times more likely than women to be in prison. Blacks die earlier than whites; men die earlier than women. Blacks are less likely than whites to attend college or graduate from college. Men are less likely than women to attend college (46 percent versus 54 percent) and less likely to graduate from college (45 percent versus 55 percent).30
Apartheid forced blacks to mine diamonds for whites; socialization expected men to work in different mines to pay for diamonds for women. Nowhere in history has there been a ruling class working to afford diamonds they could give to the oppressed in hopes the oppressed would love them more.
Blacks are more likely’ than whites to volunteer for war in the hopes of earning money* and gaining skills; men are more likely than women to volunteer for war for the same reasons. Blacks are more likely than whites to subject themselves to the child abuse of boxing and football in the hopes of earning money, respect, and love, men are more likely than women to subject themselves to the child abuse of boxing and football, with the same hopes.
Women are the only ‘ oppressed” group to systematically grow up having their own private member of an “oppressor" class (called fathers) in the field, working for them. Traditionally, the ruling class had people in the field working for them — called slaves.
Among slaves, the field slave w-as considered the second-class slave; the house slave, the first-class slave. The male role (out in the field) is akin to the field slave — or the second-class slave; the traditional female role (homemaker) is akin to the house slave — the first-class slave.
Blacks who are heads of households have a net worth much lower than the heads of households who are white; men who are heads of households have a net worth much lower than heads of households who are women.31 No oppressed group has ever had a net worth higher than the oppressor.
It would be hard to find a single example in history in which a group that cast more than SO percent of the vote got away with calling itself the victim. Or an example of an oppressed group which chooses to vote for their oppressors more than it chooses to have its own members take responsibility for running. Women are the only minority group that is a majority, the only group that calls itself oppressed that is able to control who is elected to every office in virtually every community in the country, tower is not in who holds the office, power is in who chooses who holds the office. Blacks, Irish, and Jews never had more than 50 percent of America’s vote.
Women are the only “oppressed” group to share the same parents as the "oppressor to be bom into the middle class and upper class as frequently as the “oppressor"; to own more of the culture’s luxury items than the "oppressor”; the only “oppressed" group whose "unpaid labor” enables them to buy most of the fifty billion dollars’ worth of cosmetics sold each year; the only "oppressed” group that spends more on high fashion, brand — name clothing than their "oppressors"; the only “oppressed" group that watches more TV during every time category than their "oppressors."32
Feminists often compare marriage to slavery — with the female as slave. It seems like an insult to women’s intelligence to suggest that marriage is female slavery when we know it is 25 million American females33 who read an average of twenty romance novels per month* often with the fantasy of marriage. Are feminists suggesting that 25 million American women have enslavement fantasies because they fantasize marriage? Is this the reason Danielle Steel is the best-selling author in the world?
Never has there been a slave class that has spent a lot of time dreaming about being a slave and purchasing books and magazines that told them "How to Get a SIavemaster to Commit." Either marriage is something different from slavery for women or feminists are suggesting that women are not very intelligent.
The difference between slaves and males is that African-American blacks rarely thought of their slavery as “power," but men were taught to think of their slavery’ as "power." If men were, in fact, slavemasters, and women slaves, then why did men spend a lifetime supporting the slaves and the slaves’ children? Why weren’t the women supporting the men instead, the way kings were supported by their subjects? Our understanding of blacks’ powerlessness has allowed us to call what we did to blacks immoral, yet we still call what we do to males patriotism and heroism when they kill on our behalf, but violence, murder, and greed when they kill the wrong people the wrong way at the wrong time.
By understanding what we did to blacks was immoral, we were willing to assuage our guilt via affirmative action programs and welfare. By thinking of men as the dominant oppressors who do what they do for power and greed, we feel little guilt when they die early in the process. By believing that women were an oppressed slavelike class, we extended privileges and advantage to women that had originally been designed to compensate for our immorality to blacks For women — and only women — to take advantage of this slavery compensation was its own brand of immorality. For men to cooperate was its own brand of ignorance.
Did men do all this because they were more altruistic, loving, and less power hungry than women? No. Both sexes made themselves slaves to the other sex in different ways. Let’s look at why both sexes did that; at why neither sex can accurately be called oppressed; at why we should be celebrating rather than blaming; and at why institutions that don’t understand their new opportunities are adapting divisively because they don’t understand how to adapt lovingly.