>> next monmouth college history , professor stacy cordery and her students discuss the ideals and goals that drove feminists and the women's liberation movement in the late 1960's and early 1970's. the class examines several essays published by feminist writers at that time to explore the intellectual underpinnings of the movement. monmouth college is in illinois. this class is about an hour. >> how are we doing? good? ok, awesome. all right, we are looking this week at the origins of the growth of the women liberation's movement in this primary documents freshman course. our task is to understand the problems of the women involved, something about the identification they made with the problems of society and their solutions for them. just to recap -- we began this as a snapshot of the 1950's.

since history has changed over time we had to know where we , were starting so we could know where we were going. we spent some time investigating the african-american civil rights movement. at least as far as the voting rights act of 1965. we looked at the 1960 election of president kennedy and president johnson, a fair amount about vietnam from the view of the soldiers, protest, other groups. we read the piece treated that concluded the vietnam conflict. we analyze the port huron statement written in 1962. we noted an emphasis on participatory democracy -- that is, people had to be involved in decisions that shape their lives, and this involve the rejection of hierarchy and top-down decision-making. we paid attention to the rise of the new left, young people dedicated to ending war, and racism. memo theds workers' , document from wednesday from

1965. we discussed how that documents grew out of the frustration the -- the authors felt about the treatment of female workers along with male workers. does anyone remember how they put it? the women worked all day long, but the men did what? at the end of the day -- this is when you get to talk. the women worked all day alongside the men, and then at the end of the day, what happened? >> the men relaxed? >> the men relaxed and the women had to continue to work as the cooks and they cleaned and the women said, that does not seem very fair to us. we looked in that document how the authors said that women should mobilize. they should learn how to trust themselves. they should see the world through their own eyes, not through the eyes of the men who dominated them and dictated to them and made the societal norms

under which they were forced to live. in that document, king and hayden question institutions established by men like marriage, child rearing patterns, divorce laws, and they suggested that all of this be given a re-think. we saw some of what they were talking about on monday when we looked at the sex part of the sex, drugs, and rock 'n roll 1960's. you know the background, 1964, civil rights act. 1965, voting rights, the escalation of vietnam. that included operation rolling thunder. then the public began to see more and more resistance to the war effort. much of it headed by sds, which is getting larger and more anonymous. so, this is part of the context of your documents for today. as energy was devoted to the antiwar effort, sds was not interested in debating the kind of memo we read. you remember that men laughed at the memo, but that was the tip of the iceberg of the response

by men, who were to these women lovers, brothers in arms, so the sense of unhappiness, but trail, -- betrayal sadness and sorrow, , the invisibility these women felt made them feel taken advantage of and other things we will discuss in a few minutes. when women could finally get together to talk about their feelings, they discovered that they were not alone when they got together to discuss their feelings. in the lack of power, authority, respect, etc., was endemic through other aspects of the new left and beyond. so, we looked at the 1966 statement of purpose from the national organization of women. we looked at this as a call to action for equal access to jobs, education, and politics. when the women of now who were slightly older than the women of equality, opportunity,

and responsibility in society. so, like a memo, the statement of purpose called for a re-examination of marriage. they brought up these stereotypical treatment of women in the media. now called for an end to sex discrimination. then, again, from the anger and sorrow and frustration and the awful sense of betrayal from these men, there was a very rapid rise of what was called the women's liberation movement, the modern feminist movement. it went by different names. and 1967 this is , going to snowball. so, on wednesday, we looked at the protests of the miss america pageant in 1968. we had some fun with their 10 points about that. so now what we're going to do is move from that document, that highlighted the stereotypes under which women in the 1960's

labored to robin morgan, goodbye to all that. and i want to start by asking you, if you can begin by telling me where you see actual evidence of the hurt and betrayal i was just talking about. if we could turn to robin morgan's "goodbye to all that." let's see if you can tell us where the hurt and betrayal is. ms. johnson? two she says goodbye , to the weathervain. the first thing i wrote was "weathermen?" they talked about how the women had to go through sexual relations with each member. and then they talked about charles manson. she talks about how charles manson enslaved women to do the deeds that he created in his mind. she directly referenced sharon tate, who was murdered by the manson clan. i thought it was interesting that she went from -- to mary

jo, and mary jo was the woman who was killed in the car accident as a passenger with ted kennedy. he kind of like fleet the scene. she did not really get justice, things like that. i thought it was interesting she went to the weathermen and drew a direct correlation to popular culture and things that were in the news at that time. >> that was awesome. thank you. great, wonderful. nothing like starting with the weatherman to get peoples' attention. starting far outside. good. who else has evidence of the hurt and betrayal? mr. downey? >> i feel like a lot of it was dedicated to unmasking what they called -- the specific one was the liberal coercive masks worn by real nice guys we all know and like, right?

in terms of the left sort of defining himself as helping women, but really putting more oppression on them. >> yeah, it is the guys we know and love, right? that is what she starts her document with, exactly. 2 -- the liberal co-optive masks on the face of sexist hate and fear, worn by real nice guys we all know and like. in that sense of betrayal is the sense these are men she has known better than anyone else. these are the men who are the source of this sexism that is so onerous and terrible. good. anybody else? >> page 198 in the last paragraph -- she mentioned the idea of an amulet of madness. it is an object whose owner possesses it, it protects her in a way. an amulet of madness would be protecting them from becoming insane. you can see how much the hurt is

building up and they are bottling it up to the point where they might just snap, and they want to rip off the protection of the insanity by ripping off the amulet. >> that is great. do you all know what she's talking about? the amulet of madness. protection against madness. but you know, madness is a term that gets applied to women, does it not? women are crazy, insane. or they go crazy once a month, right? whatever the craziness is applied to women, so this is part of it. you can get a sense that the sexism under which these women are laboring, it is making them crazy in that way, too, right? good. anybody else see evidence of betrayal or anger in this document? >> when she starts all of her

goodbyes, the very first one, i thought it stood out to me when it says, the trouble with you as you are an aggressive woman. i can only imagine someone saying that now. i just think -- that is what she starts, gets everyone's skin crawling. it gets everyone involved in this, i guess. >> that is great. your sense of "you are an aggressive woman" is an example of the -- more the stereotype, more the madness, more i am saying what i think and you are dismissing me as an aggressive woman. sayight, so take what i first. i should not have to get aggressive for you to hear what i say. >> ok. i understand. thanks. anybody else? ms. johnson? >> another thing that struck me about this document -- it says in the dark we are all the same, and you better believe it, we are all in the dark, baby. it is kind of like -- if you think about it, she is referencing sex and how you turn out the lights, and it does not matter what the woman is like because they are all the same in

bed, i guess. but when she says, you better believe it, she is talking about their troubles and their problems and how they need to come into the light and be recognized by the rest of the population. >> ok, good. i will take that. good reading. anybody know what "goodbye to all that" means? why this title? she uses this over and over again, does she not? what does it mean to go down to the bottom? anybody got any thoughts about that? this is sort of 1960's speak. anybody know? >> in the sense that all of these movements are still controlled by men, so we have to get rid of all of these institutions that are run by men, regardless of what they proclaim to be fighting for. they are still oppressing women. >> ok, so goodbye to all that. can we look together on page two? goodbye to all that. start at the top. ms. casey, what is the first

one? >> goodbye to the male-dominated peace movement -- [indiscernible] >> goodbye to the male-dominated peace movement, which we women are all a part of. yes, goodbye to the mail-dominated peace movement. ok, what is the second one? >> goodbye to the straight, male-dominated left. >> what does that mean? >> i believe it is those that feel they are celebrating women, but in a way they do not want to be celebrated. >> oh, good. these are goodhearted men we know well who we think are on our side, and maybe they think that they are ok. like the sympathetic men we saw yesterday at the 1958 miss america contest, right? sympathetic men, they can drive the cars, right? ok good. , let's see. who else? what is number three? anybody?

>> goodbye to the weathervain. >> that is where you started, right? goodbye to the weathervain. v-a-i-n, she is spelling it. and free sexuality but practice of sex on demand for males. anybody notice the goodbye from all that that sets women apart from women? ok. did any of you notice anything about women's involvements with other women as comrades in arms here? anyone understand that in this document? >> a lot of sister-brother talk. kind of linking them together in that way. >> sister-brother talk. ok. i think this goes back to part of what ms. johnson pointed out, how we are in the dark, all the same. which is kind of a snide write-off of men, is it not? it does not matter what she looks like. in the dark, it is a woman, it is a body. it does not matter, right?

but in the dark, we are all the same. we all share the same pain. goodbye to all that. what sets women apart from other women. what would she be talking about? what sets other women apart from other women that we have seen in the movement before? anybody know? >> there thoughts, ideas, and opinions? what makes them individuals. not a part of who they are and how men identify women. >> how does that set women apart from other women, or against other women? >> if they have different viewpoints. someone might believe this is not the way this should be going. >> ok, i see where you're going. >> the old-fashioned way to view. >> the traditionalist versus more contemporary thought. ok. good. >> you have the traditional housewife who chooses to do what

her husband tells her to do, and you have women who have decided they want to be heard and they are not going to live a traditional life. so, you're putting women against women in that sense. >> ok, very good. we see echoes of this today. when, you know, what is a woman supposed to do when she has small children? she is supposed to stay home with them. no, she should put them in daycare. no, she should stay home with them. no, she should put them in daycare. there are always ways they can find to put women against other women. aren't there other ways that women are opposed to women though? mr. perez, hang on. hold that thought. ok, go. >> i think about women who are silent who do not put out their opinions from one another. it was one of the first documents we talked about in the beginning. >> women who are silent and women who speak up? is that what you mean? >> yes. >> ok. good. i am thinking of a really obvious one.

apparently it is only obvious to me. >> on the first page, fourth paragraph in the middle, she mentions whether you are white, black, brown, race, income, class, differences in women. let's put this aside. let's put that in the past for now. >> excellent. we have seen african american women and white women in trouble before in the movement. i'm just thinking, what sets women against women? you got the obvious -- >> was it the document yesterday about the miss america pageant, like playing women against each , other based on physical appearance. like their beauty? >> oh, my gosh. we're thinking of a whole bunch of ideas. that is a good one. thank you. >> men? >> thank you! that is the one i was thinking of. how about women competing for men, right? she is saying forget that kind of competition, but i really like the competitions that you all -- do you have another one? >> there are are women who crumble and submit to that well. >> ok, good. goodbye to all that.

this sets women apart from other women. at the bottom of the paragraph, goodbye to the illusion of strength when you run hand in hand with your oppressor. what does that mean? that one may not be so easy to get. the illusion of strength when you run hand in hand with your oppressors. >> i mean we talked about before , how in this document she mentions there are those men out there that think they are liberating women, but in reality they are oppressing them. it is those men who are siding with the women, but in reality some of those men realize they -- some of those women realize that they are not really helping them at all. >> could be. yes. >> we talked about institutions and how it is not men you -- that oppress women, but institutions run by men. i think with women participating in these institutions, they're kind of going with what they are doing, and it was also they

think the man is going to stand up for them, but in reality, he is the one who puts her down. >> ok, that could be. i think this is simpler. this is a simple thing. would you like to try it? >> you think you have strength because he is keeping her close, but she is following what he wants her to do. >> maybe. >> that is where you get the strength, being together, but he is putting you in his control. >> ok, i think you're close. ms. casey? >> it is an illusion of strength -- if you are with that oppressor, that is the only reason you're strong. you are with that man. >> with in what way? >> i would say always, really. >> what relationship with? >> what do you mean? >> i think we're talking about

the strength you get because you are with a particular person of status. did your high school operate this way? whoever dated -- i don't know, the captain of the football team, did she have status because she was dating him? yes, sort of, yes, maybe? i think this is what we're talking about. i think we are talking about you are running hand and hand with your oppressor. women of this era complained about the fact that the only way they had authority or power or status was because they were the one connected to the leader of the group. so your status is derived from your oppressor. andrea dworkin is going to write a great book in a couple years called right-wing women, and this is going to be part of what she talks about, how your status comes from the one you are with. ok, goodbye to the hypocritical double standard, at the bottom of 196.

what is the most striking part of this document for you? does anybody have something that stands out, that summarizes it all for you? mr. yates? >> her entire tone is kind of like she is frustrated. she is done with all of the oppression. >> she is done with all that. goodbye to all that. >> yeah. one of the parts that stood out to me, 197, sexism is not the fault of women, and it goes on, kill your fathers, not your mothers. which just, like, to me was surprising. >> kill your fathers, not your mothers. it is surprising why? >> because, i mean, that paragraph sets up how -- i am blanking. >> ok. >> you hope they do not mean that literally, but let's put down the men to stand up for the

women. >> i think we're talking about tossing them off their podiums, is what she is talking about. not really kill. she is not saying to murder your fathers or your mothers. either way. on page 198 -- it is the goal of revolutionary feminists to build an ever stronger movement so sisters on counterfeit, counter left will have somewhere to turn. two use their power and rage and beauty and coolness on their own for once, on their own terms, on their own issues, their own style, whatever that may be. what you think we are saying here? does that strike anybody, that section? i love it when you look like you have never seen those words before either. >> where is that? >> 198.

this is one of the most famous parts. it is the job of revolutionary feminists to build an ever stronger independent women's liberation movement. this is the first document where we have seen the phrase women's liberation movement, capital w, capital l, capital m. so the sisters in captivity, counter left, she's attacking again the new left, and attacking will have somewhere to turn. look at the agency. remember the now document said that women needed to have the -- equality but it was very , insistent that women use their own talents. put them to use. it was part of their duty to society to put them to use. use their own power and rage and beauty and coolness on their own behalf -- instead of whose? >> men. >> men. that is right. on their own terms instead of men's. on their own issues, whatever that may be. all right, she says, further down, she says, we are an oppressed people, but a people raising our consciousness.

that will be a big phrase of this era, consciousness raising. raising our consciousness of -- our consciousness, our awareness of something that is the other side of anger, something that is bright and smooth and cool like action. we keep hearing the word "action" in these documents. what is this document calling for? bottom line, what does robin morgan want here? >> a voice for women. >> ok, a voice for women. very good, miss casey. >> they want the women's voices to be heard they want it to be the women's voices with no outside in from the male population. >> this notion of women's agency, women's voices, women's everything being used on behalf of women, yes, good. >> of the women, for the women, by the women. >> that has a nice catch to it. that was good. >> she actually quotes -- power to all people or power to none. so, in the same way, when the racial bigotry is going on, you

have women's liberation, and they feel if they are not equal with men, there is no equality anymore. >> the good. i asked you to think about stereotypes you see in here. anyone pick up stereotypes about women here? yes? >> she says "we are the women that men have learned us about." -- warned us about." >> that is good. >> that is probably my favorite. >> why? >> i feel like men were telling their wives not to get caught up in the hype and what these women are doing and fighting for does not exist and women are equal and all this other stuff. so their wives do not get worked up either. i think that she is talking about how the people behind this statement are the ones that the husbands are -- not really afraid of, but worried about. they are the ones bringing the ruckus.

i think it is funny of her to recognize that and say, we are the ones that are going to do this, and you guys are scared of us or worried about what we're going to do or you should be. >> or you should be. robin morgan will be married -- you all saw those little one - minute clips of her. you know, you have a face behind this document, yes? she was a smart woman. good writer. did you want to conclude your thought? >> i would think it is because men fear that women are becoming too aggressive. they see them standing up for themselves and pushing forward new change, they fear this because they're starting to become more of an equal person in this world. >> yes, and this notion of power like a pie where, if i take a big slice, that means there's less for you.

right? there is only so much power. and the belief -- it was very clear from the african-american civil rights movement, 10 years before this document, no one gives up power willingly. nobody wants to share power. if i give you some, i have less. is this good? probably not, for me. this is a tricky thing, right? very quickly -- what is the tone of this document? throw out some adjectives. throw them out loudly. >> directive. >> what else? >> preaching. >> in a good way or bad way? >> preaching opinion -- either way. >> preaching, not preachy. ok. what do you guys think? q3 in the front row? got an adjective for me? >> vulgar. >> vulgar. she says vulgar and she would be , right. there are words in here you would not want to say in front of your grandmothers probably.

good. what you think, tone? tone? >> angry. >> angry, obviously. anybody else see anger in here? yeah, she has some righteous anger. ok, can we turn to the red stockings manifesto please? what is the tone of this? is it the same, different? what do you think? we have not met the red stockings before. they were a group founded on the east coast. their initial concerns had to do with making abortion a topic that was ok to talk about in society and then seeking legislative assistance to move abortions out of back alleys and into safer places for women. so, the red stocking manifesto. what is the tone? >> serious, yet frustrated. >> good. what is the tone? >> they feel like taking action. the tone was that women want to

change men rather than give them all the power, you know what i mean? >> women what to change men rather than give men the power or take more from them? >> they do not want all the power themselves. they want to change the power scale. they want to change men. you know what i mean? >> they want to change men. change the power structure. can you point to somewhere where you're seeing they want to change men? >> they just point out that men control everything. male supremacy is the oldest type of domination, and basically -- >> yeah, you got it. point three. do you want to help him out? >> it is not in .3, but i underlined where it says we do not need to change ourselves, but to change men. like it says right there.

>> why do you think that is? >> i don't know. i think -- it is hard to take a side in it. i don't know. i feel like they are kind of -- acting like they are kind of perfect and it is all men's fault. but it's really not -- the generations have evolved into what it has been. >> and it helps to think like historians. put yourself back in that time. you live in a completely different world. >> i don't know. >> no, no, that's good. that's good. so, that is the most famous line. male supremacy is the oldest, most basic form of domination. all other forms of exploitation and oppression are extensions of male supremacy. men dominate women. a few men dominate the rest. what do you think? that is pretty stark language, isn't it? do you think it is true? >> yes. i mean --

in retrospect men have always , been in power and at the top of that ladder are a few individuals, women in control -- it has hardly ever been queens that have the most power. it has always been kings or elected officials who always been men. >> predominately men before now. kings and is there another way to be at the top beside such ruling? >> money. >> money. power through money, power to politics. all men have oppressed women. is that true? that is a pretty big blanket statement, too. all men have oppressed women. ms. casey? >> i have a question. >> yes? >> what if it was an unintentional oppression? as a child, you are not aware of

the privilege you have being a male? i don't know. is it every single man? >> you mean three-year-old boys? >> let's say you have that male comrade who really does support you -- i can't remember what the exact term was, how they describe it -- the sympathetic male, thank you. what if you genuinely do have a sympathetic male? you are still attacking him based on how he is born? >> ms. casey, you do not even know what an awesome question that is. maybe you do. have any of you studied what would be the answer to that question in other classes? can you rephrase what she is asking? this is a really important question. we could spend the next three weeks just on that question. in fact, there are about 9000 books in answer to that question. mr. downey? >> one of the things we talked

about in my other class was, if men are part of a society, in terms of where you fit in comfortably in society to be in that sort of position, so is it their fault for continually being a part of that, and even if they do support women and are a sympathetic male, they are still part of the society as a whole. >> not only are they part of it, but what? >> they are it. >> ok, we're going to come back to this. that is very good, ms. johnson. >> i was going to say that it is a simple issue of nature versus nurture. >> maybe. what do you mean? >> it gets to oppression in general. even when you're talking about racism, things like that, it -- is it the way that people are? like oppressing women, is that

the way that men are? is that in their nature, or is that how they were raised? is a biological or is it because of what you are raised around? >> so, you are getting to the point of nature versus nurture, which we sort of talked about -- where you going in front? yes, other way. the lady in the purple. nature versus nurture. and how society is constructed, is a constructed this way or are the men born this way? that is part of your answer, but not all of it yet. ms. booth? [indiscernible] in nature versus nurture, which i learned in psychology, about nature and how there are things -- instincts and how you learn yourself or others, which goes emotionalrture, how

and how you develop. >> so you're saying nature versus nurture is part of the answer here, that boys develop differently from girls? what role does society play in this? how they are raised, that is the society part. did your psychology class say it was more nature or nurture? .> it is more nurture fo >> wait a minute. your question now -- we often look at this in terms of racism and what is called white privilege. have you studied white privilege anywhere? you did? >> that is why i thought of it. you are born into that privilege. you are automatically the oppressor or the oppressed. i don't know. sometimes i feel like they are generalizing all males. when they do not always -- >> ok.

let me interrupt you for a second. what we're saying here is in part, all men oppress all women because all men, whether they are three-year-old boys or 30-year-old men or 90-year-old men, benefit from a system of what we're going to call the patriarchy. men in charge of all institutions. we have seen this in our other documents, yes. men ruled rule the courts, men ruled the political system, men rule all of it. all of it. men tell women what to do, tell their wives what to do, all of it. sex, every aspect you can think of. so, even if you are a sympathetic male, do you not still benefit from the fact of being a man? if you are a sympathetic white, if you are one of those white students who went south and work ed to get african-american southerners enrolled to vote, do you not still benefit from the fact that you are white? even if you're sympathetic? even if you do not want to? even if you get it as much as

you can get it, not being black or not being female, don't you still benefit? i think that is in part your answer. even a three-year-old boy. i guess i want to say -- do you remember that advertising we looked at from the 1950's for the dishwasher? who had the action, who led the agency? who was obviously connected to the dishwasher -- the little girl or the little boy? >> the little girl. >> yeah, you, woman, dishwasher. that was with the boy was saying off to the side. that is what you told me you saw in there. that is great -- that is great. that is a great question. that is a great question. and it gets in part to the heart of what these women were trying to suggest about the role of men, because they are not happy. it is not a very happy document, is it?

these women are kind of angry. mr. mallory, did you have your hand up? mr. ray? >> provided that a man is sympathetic and he is white and given that he wants to sympathize with women, are they justified in raging against all men just because they got lucky in being born a man? >> ah. excellent question. what you think they would answer? let me make it easy. what do think the red stockings would answer? yes. they would say yes. and aren't they calling for a raised consciousness of men as well? step out of yourselves. look at the system. do you have something to say? yes, no? >> yes. >> ok. >> did those sympathetic men get oppressed from other men when they saw --

>> you mean in the movement, where they made fun of by other men, that sort of thing? >> yeah. >> probably. i don't know. >> you can't blame all of them. you can say it is in their nature, but there are those are men who are also being oppressed. >> yes, but -- if you are a red stocking you are going to say, and they do, all men have oppressed women. all men have oppressed women. all other forms of exploitation and oppression are extensions of male supremacy. men dominate women. a few men dominate the rest. now, the kinds of questions you are asking, we are going to be looking at in more detail when we look at the conservative side, because there will be many americans asking these questions. and lots of them are going to be husbands. what, why are you mad at me? i just did the dishes. can't you be mad at somebody else? are you mad at a specific man,

or all men? goodbye to all that. that is part of the pain and sorrow and the betrayal. you can see in these documents. they are enraged against the men they love. who represent the system they don't like. the system is broken. how do you fix that system? not so easy. >> i guess, the thing about men all being oppressors, yeah, but what is your definition of oppressors? >> of? >> what is your definition of oppressors? he makes me cook him supper and does not thank me. yeah, they are all oppressors, but how are they oppressed? i don't know. >> this is good. this is good. i have to tell you, in this era of the movement, nobody was thinking in terms of gray. in this era of the movement, it is so raw.

it is like these women have the zeal of the newly converted. they just got it. the penny drops. they are like, wow, i am mad at myself for being complicit in this, i am mad at them for being complicit in this, i am mad we did not figure this out before, what kind of opportunities could i have had if we had figured this out before, so these are great questions. and this was kicked around in bars and living rooms and those sunken pits that people had in their houses in this era like you saw on "the brady bunch," right? yes, mr. caruso? >> men oppressed women because of their expectations that they had to do the insignificant tasks of daily life. and they had to do the carpentry and building with her hands. -- with their hands. >> because they are suited to it. >> they are best at it, where women are best at nurturing and doing all that kind of stuff. >> which takes us right back to biology and nature versus nurture, yes? it gets us back to that ancient

historical thing here you can go -- historical thing that you are talking about. you can go back as far as the hebrew bible to find these roles for women, yes. >> you go back to the port huron statement, and they are blaming the past generation for what the system is like now -- it answers the question for why men are oppressors. they conform to the past, mass media has brainwashed them from the past, the generation hands-down the oppression to women. >> generational change takes a long time, doesn't it? it is not just one generation. it does not happen quickly. >> the new left, how much of that was the left that was in "goodbye to all of that" -- >> that is it. that is it. the men of the new left. and the men of the new left,

with him they worked in the trenches day in and day out, those are the men who said you make the coffee and you make the mimeograph and you make the food and you make the beds or whatever. those men. who could, sometimes they would say, yeah, i get it. you are good enough to go knock door to door with the voter rights drive with me, but i am not making the coffee. and by the way, you know what? let's turn to the next document. because then you will get to see -- nice segue, mr. downey. let's look at the politics of housework. ok, this person was a member of red stockings, yes? you all know this? what is the tone of this document? >> i mean -- it is funny. maybe she did not intentionally mean for it to be as funny as i found it, but it is just -- i just like that she puts in here

what he says to her, but what it really means, because everything has a double meaning. nothing means what, you know each person thinks something , different. so, i found it funny. i don't know. >> ok. funny? >> i agree. i like the translations. this is what he is saying, but this is what he means. >> mr. finley, is it funny? >> i found it informative, too. >> you found it informative? tell us how it was informative. >> someone might not see the other meaning. if it were another person's wife, he could say that and be like, oh, whatever, but she breaks it down to what he actually means. >> you have been surprisingly silent. what did you think? [laughter] >> i would not go so far as to say it was funny. i would say, yeah, i agree, it was pretty much informative.

it is interesting to find the differences of what people think is trivial in terms of what the man views as trivial and what the woman views as trivial, but i can definitely understand the man's views, but i know all of the subversive tactics. oh, mom, i don't know how to do the laundry. i don't you do it? [laughter] >> did she fall for it? >> oh, yeah. correct because she loves you. your mama loves you. >> she is a saint. >> she is. ok, this document is from the 1970's. this is a classic. it was meant to be funny. right? it was part of this, and another document we will not get today called "why i want a wife," it

speaks about these stereotypes, and now that you have read the red stocking manifesto and goodbye to all that, you will understand, was that women were angry. they could not see fun in anything. they were not fun to be around. angry feminists. in part, this is to say, i have a sense of humor here. ok, what struck you most about this? >> i thought it was odd, her definition of a liberated woman. >> what was her definition of a liberated woman? >> she says that, differ from women's liberation, these women have a career and also have sex a lot. that is what she said. [laughter] >> what does that mean? anybody know what that means? what does that come from? we are looking at the first paragraph.

liberated women -- very different from women's liberation. the first signals all kinds of goodies to warm the heart, not to mention the other parts, of the most radical men. the other signals housework. so, liberated women warm the hearts and other parts of most radical men, and women's liberation signals housework. hmm. what is she talking about? >> specifically how liberated women is alluding to women who fought for sexual freedom as the number one priority. >> yes. remember, on monday we talked about sex? sex, drugs, rock and roll. all those liberated women? remember, we talked about how it did not escape men that a liberated woman could be a woman who was available for sex? thanks to birth control, 24/7? sex without marriage, sex before marriage cozy housekeeping , arrangements as in, i am living with this chick, and you do not want a doormat who is going to lay down and take what

ever. you want a liberated woman. so, the liberated woman has sex a lot and a career, something that can be fitted in with the household chores, like dancing, pottery, or painting. that is her career. dancing, pottery, or painting. it is ok to laugh. [laughter] on the other hand, women's liberation is housework. what? you think this is trivial? it is perfectly reasonable. we both had careers. why shouldn't we share the housework? then this long list, all the ways she says, why don't you do this housework, and he says -- hmm, not so much. ok, in the interest of time, does anyone see any connection here to any other documents? one big when you should all be able to pick out. ms. casey?

>> i believe it was in the port huron statement. i thought it was funny -- this is what you have to do. then she lays that out. do this, do that. and hopefully that the quality will come from it. >> is she serious here, this long list on the bottom? one through what? 9 points? is she serious? about how to teach your new liberated, sympathetic partner how to do the housework? do you think she is serious? >> 50%. >> sorry? >> somewhat. not actually. i think there is a strong joking tone. but at the same time, this is the conflict we have in front of us. this may not be the best way to deal with them. obviously, he is not a dog, but -- >> but -- >> there are still issues. >> they are being specific,

aren't they? arm yourself with the knowledge of psychology of oppressed peoples everywhere and a few facts about the animal kingdom. again, it is ok to laugh. itdmit playing top off, and is selling, but as a last resort, men bring this up all the time. so, is she trying to get you to understand these excuses that men give? have we not been saying for the last week, all of these documents where women say over and over again, women say, we need a change, the institutions of society that affect the family, housekeeping, child rearing, marriage, divorce, yes? it is like a little manual, isn't it? how to train up your husband or your partner on the housework. i thought you needed something light for friday to end on, but most of you found it funny. did anybody find it not funny at all? >> i was kind of pisse d off.

as housework is not something great that men have accomplished. i just kind of find that ridiculous, but that is how it was back then. >> number two on the back? "a great many american men are not accustomed to doing any monotonous, repetitive work which never issues lasting achievement. this is why they would rather repair the cabinets rather than do the dishes." you repair the cabinet, it gets done. dishes have to be done over and over again. men have always had servants, us, women. to take care of this while they confine their efforts to be rarefied and upper regions. that talks like the red stockings manifesto. men at the top. it is ironic when they ask women, where are your great painters and statesmen, etc.? there was a shop so a husband could paint.

mrs. martin luther king kept his house and raised his babies. was she trying to say? anyone want to summarize that point? >> you couldn't do what you do without us. >> could not do it. behind every great man, there is a woman doing the laundry. it made you angry. >> that is what i got out of it. housework is not something great that men have accomplished. >> don't you think what they are really saying is, housework is not that great of a thing for anyone to accomplish? it is monotonous. you make the bed, you sleep in the bed, you make the bed, you sleep in the bed. you do the dishes, you eat, you do the dishes. boring, repetitive work. who wants that? but men say, you can do that. you have got a low boring we point. will leave that up to you. this is what women enjoy doing. this is what women have done always. yes? sex and caste. remember the caste? hierarchy again.

participatory democracy. everyone needs to be involved. do away with the sex-based caste system. ok, someone give me a summary. what have we learned today? or maybe just make a start at a summary of what we learned today. >> women were very mad. >> women were very mad. >> they wanted to put their foot down. >> with cause? >> some action, protest. >> was it justified? >> i think so. i mean, it is changing for the better of all in a way, i think. >> women were angry. for action tod change the social system. >> yeah. >> change the patriarchy. >> they were much more intelligent and much more progressive than had been assumed. whereas they thought that they were too aggressive, but that was good for them.

>> you're talking about the myths and realities of women's lives, how they are viewed by men, a society created by men. these women are pushing against that. >> against the stereotype. >> ok, that's good. >> they basically agree on the idea that women need equal it he -- equality. in that sense, they should be able to push society in a radical sort of sense, but there are a lot of different steps they're recommending the taken, and i can't imagine how confused these women were. >> and men. men were totally confused, deal too. it was a confusing time. and do not forget sisterhood. sisterhood is our call. you get the last words. >> i was just going to say -- she makes it clear that there is a difference between liberating single women and married women, and how there is different work to be done in both of those areas, but in order for the work to be done, all of the women have to come together. and it is about understanding not only each other, but having men understand where you're

coming from and the oppression and all that, to basically, it is everybody needs to band together to change this, and it is not going to take one woman getting out or one man supporting her. it has to be everybody. >> sympathetic men, non-sympathetic men, in order to change the system, to make it better for everybody to live together, it will take all of us. but these documents in this era, 1967 very clear about women's , 1968, voices, women's agency, women's action, women taking control of their own troubles come a right? -- of their own troubles, right? and men can take a backseat for a bit. very good questions, very good job. thank you, everyone. have a great weekend. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014]

>> you are watching american history tv -- all weekend, every weekend on c-span3. to join the conversation, like us on facebook. c-span history. week, american history tv's reel america brings archival films to help tell the story of america. >> this holds the records of the nation, the united states national archives in washington, d.c. here are preserve the documents most cherished by americans. the declaration of independence, the constitution, and the bill of rights. and many other records that explain the institutions and history of the united states. three great charters are carefully preserved for future generations. to protect them from harmful dust and chemicals in the air, each parchment sheet has been separately sealed within