traditional Christianity, and free marketneconomics: as an alleged hodge-podge ofnmetaphysical assumptions unrelated tonthe real world. No matter what thenconservatives do, they are seen as eitherndumb, cruel, or intellectually inconsistent.nWhen they defend capitalism, theyncallously disregard the poor. WhennNational Review expresses concern aboutnthe low rate of mobility found amongnAmerican Blacks, its editors are made tonappear unfaithful to conservatism, whichnis by definition here a justification fornhuman exploitation. Ross is especiallynobtuse in grasping an idea which henassociates with William Buckley: thatnfor liberals, unlike conservatives, “allnmoral questions are essentially proceduralnones.” Citing the fact that Buckley hasnproposed his own procedural reforms ofntaxation he then speaks of this as annexample of the inconsistencies besettingnthat movement which Buckley represents.nIn this particular case Ross displaysnignorance of contexts as well as of history.nBuckley’s comment about liberals reducingnsubstantive moral issues to proceduralnones has little to do with balancingnbudgets for the city of New York. Thencriticism, whether right or wrong, wasnCommendablesnWhat PricenCorrect Thinking?nJim and Andrea Fordham: ThenAssault on the Sexes;nArlington House; New Rochelle, New York,n1977.nby Nancy MohrbachernAndrea Fordham finally had enough.nAfter years of being constantly bombardednby deficient thinking in the namenof “women’s lib” on the evening newsnand in the daily papers, she began tonresearch the statistics, studies and humanninterest stories that grated against herncommon sense. The result is this jointn201nChronicles of Culturenaimed at the supposed failure of liberalsnto recognize moral absolutes and to applynthese in the form of social prescriptionsnto the body politic. This indictment,nmoreover, has its origin not in the NewnConservatism, but in the European conservatismnof the nineteenth century,nwhose exponents hurled it at their liberalnopponents, who, incidentally, were thenforerunners of today’s free marketn^nOthers’ Tasten”. . . the author has done his homeworkn. . .”n—New York Timesn”First, Ross is barely 22 years old andnhas a style, philosophy, and stance …nRoss is a serious public man and notnjust a cheeky performer with poisenbeyond his years.”n— Chicago Tribune Book Worldn”Undaunted by the variety and complexitynof the books he undertakes tonsurvey, critic Ross… goes right to thenheart of the matter.”nt. —New York Times Book ReviewnWnventure by Andrea and her husband Jim.nIn it they succeed in pinpointing thenreasons behind that vague, queasy feelingnmany of us have about the women’snliberation movement without reallynknowing why. It has to be said to thenFordham team’s credit that it has soberlynand seriously brought some order intonan area of social and moral tensions thatnhas been formed by shrill slogans andnproclivities peddled as “scientific”nresearch and diagnoses.nInherent in the feminist assumptionnthat men and women are “equal” (whichnis not to be confused with “equal opportunity”)nis the denial of obvious physical,nintellectual and emotional differences.nThis absurdity not only produces ludicrousnsituations when applied to dailynlife—such as army quotas which forcentraditional men’s jobs on women whonnn^nconservatives. But, perhaps, such detailsnseem useless to a nonchalant esthete whonvalues more highly the sound of hisnphrases than the accuracy of his assertions.nIn addition to being culturallynignorant, Ross seems at times to benafflicted by amnesia. On page 33, fornexample, he mocks the New Conservativesnfor whom the communist threat isn”an apparition more gruesomely fascinatingnthan a Transylvanian vampire.” Nonetheless,nwe are later told that the SovietnUnion is tyrannical and imperialistic and,nin fine, a fitting object for our suspicion.nIn one place Whittaker Chambers isnjudged without evidence to have beenn”pathological;” yet a few pages further,nthe author concedes the necessity fornhaving removed Alger Hiss and otherncommunist sympathizers from governmentnservice. Such about-faces, whichnare legion in the book, could have beennavoided, had the author taken the timento edit more carefully. In fact other mistakes,ntoo, might have been avoided ifnonly Mr. Ross were less of what he is: anprecocious journalist but a very youngnman without historical bearings orncultural roots. Dncannot even handle their tool boxes —butnpromotes the view that the individual isnhelpless against the conditioning ofnsociety. Indeed, much of the inflammatorynfeminist rhetoric is based upon antheory of “oppression” of women by men,nwho fashioned society in its currentn”sexist” form to assure their superiority.nSuch irrationalizing has gone so far thatnone feminist sociologist—-as the Fordhamsnreport—when faced with a studynwhich shows that married women arenhappier than unmarried, explained withnno qualms that:n”… They have been told their happinessndepends on marriage, so, even if they arenmiserable, they are married, aren’t they.’nThey must therefore be happy.”nThis attitude must inevitably lead tonall sorts of aberrations of which thenoccupations traditionally assumed byn