Marx divided die worid into proletariatnand bourgeoisie, Stanton and Anthonynuse the distinction between men andnwomen, which predates Marx, as theirnkey social dividing line. These feministsnare quite American in their approach tonhistorical and political analysis. Early on,nthey embraced a natural-rights basis forntheir insistence that, because the Creatornmade all of us equal, both men andnwomen should be accorded the right tonvote. In the period following the CivilnWar, when the franchise was formallyngranted to blacks, one might expect thatnsuch insistence upon the equal status ofnwomen would have found a receptivenear. Had they limited themselves to thisnnatural-rights argument, the suffragenmovement might have won this goalnmuch more quickly than the seventynyears that it took.nBut since they ventured beyond thennatural-rights position, Stanton, Anthonynand their sister suffragettes werenaccused of being hostile to the family, tonthe Christian religion, and they facednseveral similar diversions from the questionnof the right to vote. Why ? Their ownnwords demonstrate that the womennbrought it on themselves. Although onlynmen would vote on the question of women’snsuffrage, Stanton and Anthonynpainted a rather disturbing picture of thenmale sex as they chased the franchise.nWhen asked why they sought to vote,nStanton would offer, as her first reason, andesire to liberate women from theirndrunken husbands through “reform” ofnthe divorce laws. She repeatedly referrednto the male sex as a species of stinkingndrunkards who lacked the virtue appropriatento the power that they exercised.nWhen confronted with the suggestionnthat the Bible offered no support for hernpreference for female rule, Stanton didnnot smooth feathers by responding thatnthe American Constitution prohibits religiousntests for office, or by noting thatnours is a secular, rather than a religious,nsociety. Instead, this precursor of modernnfeminism wrote her own critical editionnof the first four chapters of Genesis,nunwittingly adding strength to chargesnChronicles of Culturenthat, to accommodate her demands, onenwould have to reverse the teachings ofnthe Bible. With such leadership, fewnmovements require enemies.nIT roponents of the dialectic usuallynconclude their analyses with an accountnof history that enumerates the rulingnforces of previous periods and predictsnfuture patterns of domination. Marxiannclass analysis moves from periods ofnnobles and serfs to the bourgeoisie andnthe proletariat, to the classless society.nStanton’s feminist bible offered allegationsnof a once-dominant matriarchate,nan account of the evils of the currentnpatriarchate, and a promise that allnwould be bliss under the emerging” Amphiarchate.”nThose who employ thisnbrand of dialectic tend to discount thenrole of reason as an influence on humannconduct, so they rarely bother to explainnwhy the next period of rule will developnaccording to their predictions. Viewingnhistory as a succession of stmggles, mostndialecticians concede that the next phasenwill not develop peacefully. Marx’s dictatorshipnof the proletariat, after all, dependednupon the annihilation of thenbourgeoisie. Ms. Stanton’s “Amphiarchate”nwould appear to depend uponnthe termination of those drunken mennIn the forthcoming issue of Chronicles of Culture:nBiainwashing in Amedcan”The trouble with the Kafkaesque perspective is that it isnexistentialism’s main cop-out. According to Sartre,nexistential man is totally free to be whatever he chooses. Henis the animal that names himself, he calls the shots, in fact,nhe brings whatever essence he prefers into his own Being.nThis goes much fiirther than Jack London or Mark Twainntelling us that morals are less important than a good steak;nwhen they strip off civilization, we are at least left withninstinct and power-and animal vitality. The existentialistnhas made it imperative that ‘modern man’ generate hisnentire identity frond Nothingness’.-London’s creednattempted to abdicate moral responsibility by appealing tonthe survival of the fittest. Kafka’s worid demands that mannaccept his responsibility even for-his instincts.”nfrom “Between Yukon and Prague”nby Keith Bowern”Plath and Sexton are iiideed distinguished poets, but theirnworth must be predicatfed oh something other than thensevered artery and the’lacerated heart.”nfrom “Poetry of Personal Misfortune”nby Robert C. SteensmanAlso:nOpinions & Views^Commendables—In FocusnWaste of Money—Petceptibles—The AmericannProscenium—Stage—Screen—Art-^MusicnCottespondertce-^Liberal Culture—SocialnRegister—Journalism—Polemics & Exchangesnnn