must also realize that the refusal toninculcate values along with sexual informationnimplies a judgment: that studentsncan make of this information whatnthey will. Such a procedure is not onlynpedagogically unsound but also unwisenand immoral. In no other subject is anstudent given the facts or the materialsnfor an experiment without any “judgmental”ninstructions as to how theynshould be used. Giving children nonjudgmentalnsex education is far more dangerousnand potentially destructive than givingnthem the toy guns that Ms. Pogrebinnabhors.nAnother inconsistency that plaguesnGrowing Up Free is iVIs. Pogrebin’s lacknof logic in her feminist attitude towardnsex education itself. She and other feministsnagree that the educational systemninculcates a sexist point of view and isnoften inept in other areas of instructionnas well. Despite these alleged shortcomings,nhowever, they support “more sexned and better sex ed.” One wonders whynthey would want to entrust this delicatensubject to those whom they have alreadynaccused of gross, if not criminal,nincompetence. Why let these samenpeople—who have supposedly allowednJohnny to be a poor reader and Mary tonflunk math—loose on sex education.-*nOne shudders to think of the fate thatnawaits the “failures” in this class.nEven uglier contradictions lurk innMs. Pogrebin’s feminist perspectivenof sexuality. Like most militant feminists,nshe finds masturbation and casualnnudity salutary; she speaks pityingly ofn”sexual deprivation” after puberty andnbemoans the fact that schools have notnhelped young people to “learn heterosexualnintimacy”; she asserts that childrennshould be told that orgasms aren”good for the human body” and thatn”everyone is entitled to have them,” andninstructs parents to tell children thatn”male-female sex is primarily fornfun . . . you can add your own moralitynto that, but don’t misrepresent thenphysical truth.” Since, for Ms. Pogrebin,nsexism (not immorality) is the villain,nshe condemns “homophobia” rathernthan homosexuality, which, she asserts,nis an option that is neither “uncommon,nabnormal, nor harmful to its practitionersnor anyone else” and hurts neithernthe economy nor ecology. If the economynand environmental considerationsnbecome the arbiters of ethics, we shallnhave reached the final reductio adnabsurdum.nJxvt of the most striking contradictionsnin Growing Up Free is that thenauthor vents her greatest spleen onnvirginity, the most nonsexist. sexuallynself-reliant state. Like other feminists,nshe does not consider the fact that celibacyncan encourage spiritual advancement,nintellectual achievement, careernaccomplishment and personal fulfillment.nShe considers virginity as merelyna “bargaining chip” in the marriagenmarket instituted by the “patriarchy.”nIronically this is itself a sexist point ofnview because it implies that a woman’sndecision not to define herself throughnsexual relationships is impossible andnreveals that feminists identify women asnmuch by their sexual status vis a visnmen as does the patriarchy. Thus thenfeminist refusal to recognize a woman’snability and right to define herself sexuallynby abstinence instead of by selfindulgencenand promiscuity is anythingnbut nonsexist because both self-indulgencenand promiscuity often lead to victimizationnby a male partner. Furthermore,nalthough feminists are correct tonnndeplore the double standard, they makena crucial mistake in insisting that therenbe no standard for either sex. Rathernthan encouraging both sexes to practicenchastity, Ms. Pogrebin suggests thatnboth be given the un-privilege of fornication,npromiscuity and irresponsiblensexuality. This implication that twonwrongs make a right violates virtuallynevery traditional moral code known tonthe Western world.nTherefore, it is not surprising thatnMs. Pogrebin and others who supportnthe two-wrongs-make-a-right platformnoppose most traditional religions, whichnthey dismiss as “patriarchal.” Patriarchy,nhowever, has little to do with thenfundamental conflict between traditionalnreligion and feminism. In fact, theirngoals are essentially opposed. Religionnseeks the cultivation of the wholenindividual through self-abnegation;nfeminism stresses only the cultivationnof the nonsexist aspect of the individualnthrough self-gratification. The greatnirony is that the “patriarchal” religionsnwhich the feminists deride are less sexistnthan the feminists themselves; thengreat religious traditions teach that salvationndepends upon transcendence ofnthe self and of the male or female sexnrole, whereas the feminists are fixatednon both.nThe moral, intellectual and culturalnpoverty of Ms. Pogrebin’s ideology isnnowhere more obvious than in this insistencenthat the cultivation of the wholenself be subjugated to that of the part.nThe central problem with her philosophynis not that its ideas for reform are tooninclusive and too radical but that they arennot inclusive and radical enough. Hernposition is specious because she demandsnjustice for both sexes but no mercy fornthe sexists; tolerance for homosexualsnbut no compassion for homophobics;nfairness in applying the same sexualnstandard to males and females but no adherencento the highest standard for both.nIt might be well for feminists to remembernthat the absence of a vice does notnconstitute a virtue and that it is truth, notnnonsexism, that will set us free. DnSeptember/October 1981n