of male prowess and female incompentence. and by unwritten rules that encouragenmen to be seemingly callous,naggressive tycoons and women to benapparently silly, seductive sirens.nGrowing Up Free is both thoroughnand exhaustive, and sometimes thoroughlynexhausting. The exhaustion resultsnnot only from the size of the book,nits unabating feminist fervor and thenblind absolutism of the author’s, pronouncements,nbut also from its multitudinousncontradictions. K these werentypical only of Ms. Pogrebin’s book,nthey would reflect merely her personalnidiosyncracies. but unfortunately theynseem to be inherent aspects of the militantnfeminism that Ms. Pogrebin (anfounding’editor of Ms. magazine) andnothers espouse.nLike other militant feminist studies.nGrowing Up Free is intellectually dishonestnin claiming to be unbiased, nonsexistnand objective. The author doesnnot seem to realize that her stance isndefinitely biased and at least partiallynsexist itself. This lack of objectivity appearsnin the guise of unsubstantiatednopinions (“Total Motherhood cannot bengood for children if it puts in charge ofnthem someone whose distinguishingncharacteristics are passivity, other-directednessnand self-sacrifice.”): doctrinairenstatements (“Someone female isnfeminine and someone male is masculinenand all else is propaganda”‘); simplisticnideas (“the flip side of chivalrynis rape”); mouthing of jargon (“Ournchildren cannot wait for the revolution”);nunqualified assertions (“therenare only one million licensed day-carenslots for the twenty-eight million childrennwho need them”); and arbitrarynultimatums (“childhood must benchanged”).nJVls. Pogrebin, like other proponentsnof feminist ideology, is either unablenor unwilling to acknowledge many ofnthe inherent contradictions in the partynline. She sees no contradiction betweennher statement that her “bias is pro-child”nand her conviction that abortion is an28inChronicles of Culturen”feminist right.” Nor is she consistentneven in this purportedly nonsexist. promurdernbias: she does not object equallynto the fetal killings of both sexes afternamniocentesis^ but only to the fact thatnthe majority killed is female: this isnsexism at its worst. Furthermore, hernreal concern is not with the larger percentagenof aborted female children, butnwith the fact that this might “compromisenabortion as a birth control option.”nWhen those who support infanticidenas a “birth control option” call themselvesn”/iro-child.” we can only wondernwhat would be called anti-child.nAnother contradiction to which Ms.nPogrebin falls prey centers on a deliberatenmisapprehension of the differencenbetween the private and public spheres.nThe feminists demand publicly fundednsex education, yet they repudiate then”judgmental” attitude of the taxpayersnWisconsin GestaponHigh Times—^ Manhattan monthlynand a propaganda organ for youth genocidenvia drugs—reported a bloodcurdlingninstance of deprivation of human rightsnwhich was perpetrated by the Milwaukeenvice squad against a serene, innocent,nidyllic punk-rock group called the Plasmatics.nIts star, a certain Ms. WendynWilliams, was apprehended for performingnlewd acts in front of a teen-age audience;nshe described the police aaion asn”gestapo tactics.” Here is how HighnTimes sees it:nIn Milwaukee just two days afternReagan had stolen the presidencynwith the aid of the sinister NewnWealth Morahty coalition led by itsnTV preachers and their fund-raising/brainwashingntechniques, thencampaign against rock music begannin earnest when dozens of policenarrested Plasmatics lead singernWendy Williams for an ‘obscene’nact which they later admitted wasnmerely fondling a sledgehammernsuggestively.nnnwho would have to support it. Theyninsist upon the right to have publiclynfunded child day-care centers, but notnupon the taxpayers’ right to refuse fundingnthem. They claim that the statenshould not support a private ideology,nyet they demand that it fund theirs. AlthoughnMs. Pogrebin asserts that thenstate has no business in anyone’s privatensex life, she endorses state-fundednfamily planning, sex education, abortionnand child day-care facilities.nliven more surprising than this insistencenon publicly funded sex educationnis her stipulation that it be taught “nonjudgmentallv.”nThis view is disingenuouslynnaive, for Ms. Pogrebin and mostnother feminists are well aware that therenis no such thing as a “nonjudgmental”nattitude—especially on an issue sonhighly charged as sex education. Theyn.n^fffiJini^^^^Mmrnfam!^3L…^s^^93^3^nm^X^mn^^^^^^^31ntJ^’!^ni^jsijXnCertainly, words so laden with politicalnsavvy and social conscience are boimdnto make a doped junkie reach for his .22nand go after the thief who stole the Presidency,nbut this is,the Secret Service’snproblem. As for Ms. Williams, herself,nshe is a veteran of the next-to-the-oldestnprofession: she performs or simulatesnsexual acts on stage. However, ournepcxrh of sordldness has allowed her tonforget the sagacious stoicism of thenstreetwalkers of yesteryear. Her reactionnto the inhumanity of the Wisconsin lawmen:n- _nIntellectually I was outraged.n.. – Dn