Book Reviews 209

For women's experience to become meaningful, women must 'change critical symbols, those images
central to cultural patternings and belief systems (e.g. figures of speech) that legitimize the right of men to
name and control the existence of women' (p. 10).
Moreover, since the masculist world view 'provides not only the categories, the content of the culture,
but also the premises which order complex t h o u g h t . . , when women deny their caste status, they refuse
to accept the images, the categories and the structural logic that connect them together' (p. 17).
Roberts is aware that it is not easy to undermine man-made knowledge and culture. 'The incorporation
of a world view is arranged from birth onward on the basis of categories of inclusion-exclusion . . . . A girl
or boy will participate in only those cultural experiences deemed "proper" to her or his sex groups' (p. 19).
However, the contributors in their various ways might be seen as being involved in a 'reassessment of the
nature of knowledge' (p. 5). Once women become aware that reality is man-made, 'reconceptualization)
(i.e. the development of a feminist conception of human life) will be possible and through it the reconstruc-
tion of a new culture in which 'female autonomy and dignity are ensured' (p. 58). Roberts is quick to point
out that 'only an autonomous women's culture (also referred to as a 'non-contingent culture, i.e. one in
which there is female interpretation of reality within a context in which women have control of their en-
vironment) can ensure the incorporation of (women's) OWN values into any system jointly devised by
women and men'. (p. 58).
Roberts states that all cultures must deal with four cultural inperatives (p. 48); species sur~;ival (involving
reproduction and consequently childbearing and child rearing); physical survival (the need for food and
shelter leads to the development of economic systems); communal survival (political and legal systems to
organize social life); psychological survival (giving rise to Belief systems to reduce the flux of life to meaning
and order).
The preoccupation with monocausation and orderly evolution within the male cosmogony has meant
that one of these imperatives is usually emphasized to the virtual exclusion of the others (e.g. economic
production for determinist marxists). However, Roberts argues that this results in simplistic abstraction
and does not correspond to the complexity that characterizes social life in which all four imperatives become
'intermeshed' (p. 48).
If one is operating from a particular theoretical perspective (e.g. determinist marxism, based on the later
works of Marx), there is no doubt that an important criticism can be levelled at the book; it is eclectic and
therefore 'confused' in its exploration and analysis. For examples, it ignores the fundamental importance
of class and the productive relations in determining the structure of society and thereby the differing life
experiences of women. However, if one denies the validity of monocausal analysis, even one in which
reproduction and consequently the sexual division of labour is seen as paramount, the criticism of 'electicism'
falls down.
By its very nature 'Beyond Intellectual Sexism' is both an incomplete statement and a powerful revelation.
I believe that the emphasis on 'reality' as involving complex 'patterns of multiple meaning' (p. 46) while being
experienced under Patriarchy, through the interpretation of the masculist world view is an invaluable insight
which can only increase our understanding of the nature of patriarchal society. I strongly recommend this
book to all those people who wish to work towards transcending the confines of the male cosmogony:
'Beyond Intellectual Sexism' cannot be criticized for not explaining how the women's noncontingent culture
is to be achieved.
Et,lZABETH GALLOWAY

THE LIMITS OF MASCULINITY by Andrew Tolson, 158 pages. Tavistock Publications. Price, hardback £5.50
and paperback £1.95.

We need a new word. How should we describe men who accept the basic tenets of feminism, seeing them
as potentially liberating for both sexes, and try to live their lives accordingly? Weak terms like 'supportive'
or 'sympathizers' are inadequate. 'Feminist men' is surely self-contradictory. 'Masculinist' (or should it
be 'masculist'?) has all the wrong connotations. 'Humanist' would be ideal--unfortunately its been pre-
empted.
The best I can come up with--and I don't like it any more than you do--is 'personist'. But, for the purposes
of this review, it will have to serve.
The Limits of Masculinity, then, is a 'personist' book. Andrew Tolson has set out (in the words of the
blurb) 'to explore the limits and limitations of the masculine experience'. Observing, in his introductory
chapter, that 'the rituals of masculine behaviour are increasingly under a t t a c k . . , the masculine character is
becoming highly volatile, and insecure', very largely as a result of the growth of the women's movement, he
aims to consider the implications of the 'masculine experience' in our society in the light of the feminist
challenge. In particular, he proposes to analyse the social and historical foundations of conventionally-
accepted forms of masculinity, 'to express something of the lived experience, the mystery, and the burden,
210 Book Reviews

of being a man in our society', and to consider how men might begin (the phrase is Sheila Rowbotham's) 'to
discover a new manner of being men'.
The book is divided into four chapters, of which the third, dealing with men in relation to their work, is
by far the longest (well over half the book, in fact). In his first chapter, by way of introduction, Tolson
states the basic feminist analysis of gender identity which serves as his framework. In brief: (1) 'sex' is
biologically determined, 'gender' is a socio-cultural construct, and the two need not necessarily coincide;
(2) gender is also historically determined, and may vary within a given society from one generation to the
next; (3) since, as a result of these historical and cultural dimensions, gender-determination involves power
relationships, any attempt to modify sexual roles is likely to entail a political conflict.
Throughout the book, Tolson draws on his own personal experience where he feels it to be relevant; and
in this first chapter he describes how the book stemmed from his experiences as a member of a 'men's group'.
In so doing, he recalls a feeling that most 'personist' men will recognize:

'At the time our group was formed we sensed a collective spirit among the women we knew. It seemed
that their lives were opening out--into new groups, experimental relationships, and forms of political
action. Their solidarity was carried over into family life, demanding a constructive attitude from men
to women's independence. As men, we felt trapped in our own exclusion--not beceuse we were excluded
from women's activities, but because we had no equivalent 'liberation' for ourselves.'

So far, Tolson has furnished a sound basis for a radical re-examination of 'masculinity'. Unfortunately,
he never effectively follows it up. From here on, I found this book increasingly disappointing.
The second chapter deals with boyhood and adolescence. Tolson points out how boys are trained into
'masculine' patterns of behaviour by being encouraged (as often as not, by their mothers) to emulate their
fathers, whom they at once admire and fear. Contact with their peer-group, both in school and at play,
reinforces this patterning, inculcating a tribal culture, in which certain modes of behaviour are acceptable,
others are taboo. Non-conformity is punished with rejection, or physical assault. In adolescence, the cult of
'toughness' or machismo is reinforced by fantasies of compliant, yielding womanhood (frequently untested
by comparison with reality). 'Manhood' is proved by cults of competitive achievement, whether in socially
approved forms (sport, Outward Bound courses), or otherwise (vandalism, petty crime).
All fair enough--allowing for inevitable generalizations. But all fairly unilluminating, too. Most of this
has long been commonplace among sociologists and anthropologists. Surely a 'post-feminist' critique should
go deeper--should ask less of 'what?' and more of 'how?' and 'why?' True, schoolboys are notoriously
tribal and conformist; but then so are schoolgirls, after their fashion. What makes boys form this kind of
tribe, and girls that kind? Why is 'manhood' so bound up with violence, or the potential for violence?
Whence the cult of the bicep and the 10-inch prick? And how is it that generations of women, themselves
victims of male oppression, have nonetheless conscientiously brought up their sons to be good little oppres-
sors ? Such questions are never considered--let alone answered--in this book.
The same circumscribed approach vitiates most of the long third chapter, which concentrates on men at
work and (more marginally) at home with their families. On starting work Tolson observes--men find their
'manhood' at once confirmed (by the all-male camaraderie of the work-place) and threatened (by the in-
h u m a n structure of the capitalist work-system). Men are increasingly alienated from their work and find
(or hope to find) a refuge in the home, where their patriarchal role may be recognized by a loving and de-
pendent family. Unemployment attacks men on two fronts, cutting them off from the male comradeship
of work (and of the pub, which they can't afford), and undermining their status as 'breadwinner' in the home.
Among working-class males, Tolson maintains, this dichotomy between 'work' and 'home' is particularly
marked. 'Typically, the working-class man views the world of the family in a different light to other social
relationships . . . . " H o m e " is seen by men as a retreat from the outside world.' 'Home' equates with 'leisure',
providing both a motive for working, and a compensation for the stresses and frustrations of the work-place.
Males of the middle-class have also experienced 'the erosion of patriarchal privilege by capitalist expan-
sion.' They too are alienated from their work, in their case by the crumbling of the 'professional ideal', the
lack of ethical commitment to the institution or company. Where the working-class male finds compensations
in the comradeship of his work-mates, his middle-class counterpart looks to success in climbing the pro-
motional hierarchy. Once again, 'home' furnishes both his reason for working, and a refuge from it. The
division between the two spheres, though, is likely to be less absolute; a 'white-collar worker' will often
bring work home, or invite clients (or his boss) back for dinner.
Once again, all this is hardly news. Such observations, surely, should have served as the given foundation
for an examination of masculinity--not the substance of it. A nod to the Oedipus complex, a brief genuflec-
tion to the theory of surplus value, are no substitute for original insights.
Occasionally, infuriatingly, Tolson seems to be approaching what for me is the nub of the matter--and
then veers off, as though intimidated by the complexities he has evoked. In his section on 'middle-class
masculinity', he notes that 'the high-flying executive begins to need the female colleague to let him know that
he is "doing O K " . . . . Her own prospects, and day-to-day behaviour are the necessary extension of his
achievement'. He goes on to quote 'a friend in the Women's Liberation movement' on her boss:
 Book Reviews 211

' "You know that you're not actually regarded as a person . . . . Men see you as a woman first and whatever
position you are second . . . . I mean usually you're in a slightly inferior position to a man. His ego is
constantly threatened, is constantly in a very dodgy state. And any sign of competence on my part is
totally undermining of him, you know. What I have to do is not appear to be competent . . . . I think that
men find women in Women's Liberation very threatening because they assume that if you're in Women's
Liberation therefore you're promiscuous, therefore you're very much of a sexual threat to them." '
This whole subject (not to mention some of the speaker's own assumptions) raises a host of intriguing and
very pertinent questions, which I'd hoped would now be discussed. No such luck. Tolson at once drops the
subject, and goes off on another tack. And, incredibly, those few lines are the sole reference in this section
(some 30 pages) to men's relationships with female colleagues at work.
Almost as perfunctory is the treatment of a far more fundamental relationship: that between a man and his
wife, or other long-term partner. True, the author concedes that, being 'young, unmarried and middle-class',
he may lack experience of 'many aspects of masculinity'. But it seems a serious lacuna, in a book of this kind,
that adult women should rarely figure as individuals, but rather as part of a composite entity called 'the
family' or 'the-wife-and-children'.
Indeed, nowhere in this work is the whole crucial question of male sexuality ever seriously discussed. For
most people--certainly for most m e n - - t h e terms 'masculinity' and 'virility' are virtually interchangeable.
'A real man' denotes one who can sustain an erection--or even, one who can father children. Sexual satis-
faction, for most men, is almost exclusively penis-centred. Some consideration of this heterosexually-
oriented penile obsession is surely central to any serious study of 'masculinity'; yet Tolson never attempts it.
Homosexuality rates two or three passing references; rape isn't even mentioned. 'Sex is, above all, a private
experience', Tolson remarks, apropos 'middle-class sexuality'; 'erotic desires are lonely, silent, undiscussed.'
The assertion is disputable; but it seems to apply all too well to this book, despite its claim to deal with 'the
lived experience, the mystery, and the burden of being a man in our society'.
Towards the end of the book, we at last begin to approach the area from which, to my mind, we should
have set out: the imminent erosion of traditional 'masculine' assumptions in the face of growing female
consciousness. 'Even where liberal men have voluntarily surrendered their privileges, there have persisted
unconscious limitations, built into masculinity i t s e l f . . . . One of the more insidious tendencies of the
middle-class male is a liberalism which conceals, but in the end reproduces, his traditional power . . . . Men
hang on to this institution (of marriage), not simply for chauvinist motives, or because they do not possess
the personal courage to change, but because they cannot foresee a future beyond its determination.' Tolson
rightly points out that the 'permissiveness' of the 60s had little to do with sexual equality; true, women were
being offered sexual freedom--but strictly on men's terms. Yet this deceptive 'liberation' still helped to break
the pattern, and so was among the factors leading to the more real freedom currently being achieved--a
freedom, of course, somewhat less readily acceptable to the majority of men.
This is nearer the bone; but even here, Tolson makes some questionable (and perhaps revealing) assump-
tions. Quoting an article by John Miles on 'Jealousy' (written for Spare Rib), he comments: 'For "progressive"
middle-class men, masculinity itself is in a crisis. Feelings of sexual jealousy are inescapable.' Are they,
though ? And if they are, why are they ? Again, some discussion seems called for; but all we get is the bare
assertion.
The author's conclusions are no less badly stated. After a brief account of his (ultimately unsatisfactory)
experiences as a member of a Birmingham 'men's group', he sums up as follows:
'Not only are different gender-identities ("feminine", "gay", "masculine") distinctively irreducible; they
also fundamentally contradict, and do not simply 'complement' each other. The relation between the
sexes cannot be "symmetrical": it is incongruent--and, as men have had to learn, is constructed in terms
of social p o w e r ("oppression"). To simply deny, or vaguely wish to relinquish, the reality of this power is
to fall victim to a liberal myopia. And to assume that men can, unproblematically, experience "men's
l i b e r a t i o n ' - - t h a t there are any analogies with gay or feminist politics-is, in the end, an illusion.'
Such conclusions are not merely negative, but false. If gender-identities really were 'distinctively irre-
ducible', the whole argument of this book would be invalid. In fact (as Tolson rightly established at the
outset), 'gender' is an artificial construct, determined by social and historical convention; and, like any
construct, can be dismantled. By the same token, the relation between the 'sexes' (biological) is totally
distinct from the relation between the 'genders' (socio-historical)--and thus can well be as 'symmetrical', or
otherwise, as any other biological relationship. The use of the word 'unproblematically' is sheer question-
begging; who on earth has suggested that the whole process could be anything of the sort ? The final implica-
t i o n - t h a t men cannot hope to liberate themselves after the (unproblematical ?) example of women and gays
--is a bewildering non sequitur.
As for what men can do: well, we can 'continue to participate in childcare and nursery education', we can
involve ourselves in 'community action--working with tenants' organizations, squatting, building play-
centres, and free schools', we can 'relate' to 'neighbourhood centres and newspapers'--in short, generally
act useful. No doubt we might also make the coffee.
212 Book Reviews

Perhaps one shouldn't mock. If this book has disappointed me, it's mainly because I kept catching in it
glimpses of what it might have been: a work which would have taken all we already know about masculine
conditioning, about machismo and male solidarity, the tribal cultures of school and pub and work-place,
the obsession with sex, and violence, and sexual violence--and used it as the groundwork for a thoroughgoing
investigation of the assumptions that underlie all relationships in our still (albeit precariously) male-domi-
nated society; a book which would have shown how these assumptions are changing--and how we might work
together, men as well as women, to make sure they go on changing, for the benefit of all of us. Andrew
Tolson hasn't written such a book, and that's a pity; but it may be that he needed to elear the ground first,
and that his next book will pick up where The Limits of Masculinity left off. If so, it should be well worth
reading.
PHILIP KEMP

THE CAUSEby Ray Strachey with a new preface by Barbara Strachey, 429 pages. Price, paperback £2.95.
THE SUFFRAGETTE MOVEMENT by Sylvia Pankhurst with a new introduction by Richard Pankhurst, 631
pages. Both published by Virago 1978. Price, paperback £2.95.

Both of these books are part of Virago's excellent reprint series both of them having appeared originally
just after the complete suffrage was granted to women in 1928. They mark the end of a 100 years struggle to
gain social, economic and political equality for women; for the women's movement was not to resurface until
some 40 years later when the issues were no longer equality but liberation.
Both women write as committed participants in the women's movement. Ray Strachey joined the suffra-
gists under Mrs. Fawcett in the early years of the 20th century and stood for Parliament in the first election
in which women had the vote. Sylvia Pankhurst was, of course, intimately bound up in the history of the
movement she describes, and her account is by far the best of the contemporary activists and absolutely
essential reading for anyone interested in the history of feminism.
The Cause covers the wider ground of all the movements working for the emancipation of women from
the early pioneers like Caroline Norton, struggling to change the laws relating to guardianship of children,
or Florence Nightingale, painfully and agonisingly emerging from the repressive domesticity of high Vic-
torian bourgeois existence into a life which would have other meanings and satisfactions, to the heroic days of
the Women's Social and Political Union, the Cat and Mouse Act, the forcible feeding, militant tactics and
moral crusad ing of the final years before the First World War.
The strength of Ray Strachey's book is in this inter-connecting history. She is always concerned to show
how widening opportunities for women in education, in employment, in local government, in social attitudes,
in dress, in legal status, how all these changes--some fought for actively by women, some inevitably emerging
as a result of changes in capitalism as a whole and some coming about because of state paternalism towards
women--were all part of the historical environment in which the more dramatic struggles of individual
women and groups operated. As she elaborates her story you can feel that process whereby possibility of
change enters individual consciousness and it becomes possible to talk about the unthinkable.
She is particularly interesting on the differences which the sexual division of labour produced in relation
to the protection of working conditions of men and women in the 19th century. She makes it clear that men's
greater organizational strength in trade unions meant that they could negotiate with employers what hours
they would work, under what conditions and at what pay to a far greater extent than was possible for women
who were excluded both from trade unions and the more highly skilled jobs and who theretbre had to rely
on paternalist state legislation on their behalf. This often meant that there was friction between feminists,
some of whom demanded the same freedoms as men had at work, and some of whom realized the greater
weakness of working women and therefore supported protective legislation. That division was later to
confuse the early socialist's attitudes to feminism as Sylvia Pankhurst's experience makes clear.
The Suffragette Movement is obviously a more personal account of a particular part of the feminist move-
ment. Sylvia Pankhurst was a elose friend of Keir Hardie whom she describes lovingly and movingly as he
struggled with the early Labour Party in an effort t o persuade them to embrace women's suffrage uncon-
ditionally. She was an uneasy partner in her mother and elder sister's powerful Women's Social and Political
Union which she claims forced the young Labour Party into opposition to female suffrage despite the close
connections between socialists and feminists all over the country. So painful was this break for her that she
was finally driven to found the breakaway East London Federation which was committed to working class
politics, as well as the vote for all women. This experience of the East End of London with its poverty and
desperation turned her into an early admirer of the Bolshevik Revolution although she soon broke with the
Communist Party and eventually took up the cause of Ethiopian liberation. Her last years are described by
her son in a new introduction to this edition.
It is a fantastic tale, told brilliantly. All the Pankhursts have an authoritarian streak, an absolute belief
in the moral righteousness of their cause but in Sylvia Pankhurst's case this was tempered with a commitment