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
mean women first, women best, women only. It does mean that
the fate of every individual woman—no matter what her politics,
character, values, qualities—is tied to the fate of all women
whether she likes it or not. On one level, it means that every
woman’s fate is tied to the fate of women she dislikes personally.
On another level, it means that every woman’s fate is tied to the
fate of women whom she politically and morally abhors. For in-
stance, it means that rape jeopardizes communist and fascist
women, liberal, conservative, Democratic, or Republican women,
racist women and black women, Nazi women and Jew ish women,
homophobic women and homosexual women. The crimes committed against women because they are women articulate the condition of women. T he eradication of these crimes, the transformation of the
