spare the men their commute and the evening frustrations of arnhouseliold with children. If practicable, this would be fine, Irnremarked. “But since it is not,” I went on, “let us begin by clarifyingrnour problem in the starkest possible terms: it comesrndown to not getting enough sex and having to do too much ofrnthe work.” At these electrifying words, man hands shot up.rnYes, these were the problems, all agreed, and the solution lay inrnreasserting male dominance.rnPatiently, I pointed out that in the modern world it was notrnpossible to coerce women. Thcv were naturally controlling,rndifficult to argue with. Nor was it practicable to appeal to theirrngenerosity or better nature. They knew a good thing whenrnthe’ saw one and were not about to surrender their current advantages.rnThey would not so much as admit how well theyrnwere doing: if challenged they would represent themselves asrnlong-suffering mothers, guardians of home and family values,rnand steadying influences on the naturally wayward male.rnBut here, it slowh’ emerged, was the very key we werernlooking for. We could turn women’s stance of aggrievedrnself-righteousness to our purposes. Women complained thatrnhusbands were dull and otherwise inadequate; that they camernhome after work in a surly state; that thcv were unappreciativernof their wives’ accomplishments of the day, indifferent to newrnslipcovers, unaware of a new hairdo or a new dress. Very well,rnwe concluded, our task is to employ the fulcrum of women’srninsistence that theirs is an unsatisfactory lot m such a wa’ as tornmake them bring about the changes we desired.rnThis much agreed upon, the secret group adjourned. It metrnagain the following year, 1963, on the spur of two new socialrndeelopments both highly faorable to its agenda: the abortionrnpill and the civil rights movement. Taken together, these developmentsrnpointed to a master solution for both of the group’srnagenda items of sc.x and work.rnThe pill, more than previous forms of contraception, hadrnthe potential to set women free from sexual responsibility orrnecn sexual restraint. The ci’il rights movement had been especiallyrnpopular with upper-middlc-class progressive womenrnsince the Supreme Court school desegregation decision ofrn19S4. The same w^omen just might be susceptible to the appealrnof a liberation movement employing similar rhetoric inrntheir own behalf. The trick would be to make it appear thatrnthe new mo’ement was motivated not by self-interest but bvrnconcern for other women—women of lesser status trapped inrnlives of sexual unfulfillment. Never mind that lower-classrnwomen had higher promiscuity rates than the women whornwould speak on their behalf. Properh phrased, the new movement’srndemands could appear as efforts to liberate the less fortunate,rnwhile actualK” yielding a bounty of personal titillationrnand sexual adventure for women of privilege. Stage one of thernplan—sexual “liberation”—was to be put into execution immediatelv.rnOur success was stunning. A revolution of sexual liberationrnwas launched, precisely in the terms anticipated. As was indicatedrnbv the revolution’s popular book titles—Sex and thernSingle Girl, The Sensuous Woman—this was apparently arnmovement of, by, and for women. No suspicion of the role ofrnthe secret committee ever crossed anyone’s mind. The resultrnof the sexual revolution was to bring promiscuity into voguernamong the previously hard-to-obtain women of the secretrngroup’s own class. Now one could go from one to another ofrnthem virtually at will, and be entertained like a Pasha byrnhouris—and houris who had made themselves adept at physicalrncontortions or at such sexual subtleties as the external usernof Ready Whip (ironically enough, one of the ver’ same preparedrnfoods that in recent years had helped bring about an actualrnliberation for women from the time-consuming drearinessrnof cooking). Decidedly, the sexual revolution was a success—rnfor men.rnThe third meeting of the secret group took place in 1967; itrnv’as time for the second stage of the master plan. The sexrnkittens were now to be redirected to relieving men of their burdenrnof work. The plan once again called for women to take thernlead—something that would be accomplished by elevating thernidea of “career.” All that this term had ever signified up to nowrnwas that men vho worked in larger organizations could countrnon seniority raises as they went along. Professional men werernsometimes said to have distinguished careers, but for the mostrnpart they had professional “practices,” a word destined to disappearrnfrom the language thanks to the revolution the secretrngroup now launched.rnIt was gradually insinuated into the minds of women thatrnmen did not drag themselves to work each day simply in orderrnto pay the mortgage and put food on the table, but rather experiencedrnthe ads’cnture of career. Onward and upward theyrnmoved through the progressive rewards and satisfactions of career.rnWomen had been excluded from the professional woridrnbecause men did not want to let them in on the adventure.rnWomen would now demand the right to work—ignoring thernobvious circumstance that most of their sisters would findrnthemscK’Cs not on the executive ladder but in canning factoriesrnor on production lines.rnA number of devices were employed to enhance thernchimera of career. Recognizing that the same low-level officernwork that had long been necessary would continue to employrnthe most people, and that these workers would continue to bernwomen, jobs like “secretary” were renamed with career titlesrnlike “executive assistant,” “executive secretary,” and “administrativernassistant.” Later on, the repetitive work performed atrnthe secretarial level could be glamorized by association withrnevoKing office technologies, so that typists became “word processors”rnand “computer coordinators.”rnWomen who wanted work were often qualified only for lowprestigernjobs like nursing and teaching. \’ith nursing, keepingrnthem in their place was accomplished first by applying newrndesignations—”nursing practitioners” and “physician extenders”rn—and then by multiplying administrative titles, chores,rnand designations. Accordingly, the head nurse was replaced byrnthe “clinical coordinator,” “director of nursing,” or “assistantrnice-prcsident in charge of nursing.”rnWith women teachers, we were able to take advantage of arnfortuitous development: the Coincidental decline of educationalrnlevels that from the beginning of the women’s movement uprnto the eariy 1990’s resulted in bringing down the level of collegerninstruction to a par with grammar school. This meantrnthat women could be kept at the same level of teaching, butrnwith the illusor prestige of being college instructors.rnWomen eventually came to dominate most of what arernknown as the “soft” subjects—English, sociology, anthropology,rnpsychology. In addition, special divisions of “feministrnstudies” were set up, and college administrations were tripledrnin size to employ increasing numbers of women. In the meantime,rnmen continued to conduct the serious business of thernuniversities in physics, chemistry, biology.rnMAY 1995/23rnrnrn