2. poor single mothers into marriages nevertheless has bewitched
policymakers of all political stripes. Four of the f ive welfare
reauthorization bills that either have been introduced in
Congress
or are about to be include marriage provisions. And that’s just
the Democratic bills.
The seeming irresistibility of the call to marry poor mothers
off of welfare is patent evidence of the precariousness of both
feminism and democracy. Evidence of a dangerous assault on
the rights of unmarried mothers who need welfare, efforts to use
income policy to promote marriage directly contradict the inti-
mate decisional rights that extended late twentieth century
democratization into the personal sphere.
It was Loving v. Virginia—the famous anti-miscegenation case
decided in 1967—that definitively established the significance
of intimate associational liberty to our
equality as citizens. Asserting the
national citizenship rights of individu-
als against race-based state laws restrict-
ing marital freedom, the Supreme Court
in Loving shifted the axis of marital
decision-making from government to
adult individuals—at least for hetero-
sexuals. According to Nancy Cott’s
story of the public functions of marriage
before Loving, laws governing access to
legally valid marriage, relationships within marriage, as well as
the status of marital bonds accomplished government’s cultural,
moral, eugenic, racial, and patriarchal regulation of the
citizenry.
With Loving, however, government’s power to police and to
strat-
ify the adult citizenry by conferring marital status on some inti-
mate partnerships while withholding it from others declined,
3. though only for heterosexuals.
Although Loving most importantly established the right to
marry a partner of one’s (heterosexual) choosing regardless of
race, the decision also incorporated the right not to marry as a
core element of the fundamental right at stake in the case.2
Soon
after Loving, the Court applied heightened constitutional pro-
tection to the right to be not-married when it held that the right
to dissolve a marriage could not be conditioned on the ability to
pay court costs and related fees3 and when it ruled that the right
to receive welfare benefits could not be limited to families in
which parents were “ceremonially married.”4 Both cases
involved
welfare recipients, so both decisions explicitly extended funda-
mental intimate associational rights across the divides of class
and poverty.
Loving was first and foremost a decision against racial regu-
lation of intimacy, demography, and citizenship. But especially
in noticing that the right to marry includes the right not to,
Loving
and its progeny carried special significance for women. Intimate
associational liberty implies a collateral right to maintain an
independent household even if outside patriarchal, marital
norms.
It establishes a right to exit from perhaps unhappy, perhaps vio-
lent, marital relationships. And it disentangles reproductive
choices from the marital circumstances in which they are made.
We may mostly think of reproductive liberty in terms of the
right
not to bear children; and we may mostly think of marital free-
dom in terms of the right to get married. But Loving and related
decisions that democratized personhood
4. established also that we can bear chil-
dren and not be married and—because
each right is fundamental—we can do
both at the same time.
Yet, despite judicial signals that the
choice to not marry or to unmarry were
among the intimate associational liber-
ties at the core of democratic person-
hood, government continues to treat
marriage as a necessary condition of
worthy adult citizenship. Indeed, in 1996 Congress enacted two
new laws deploying marriage to stratify citizenship. One of the
new laws, the Defense of Marriage Act, stringently limits the
rights
and benefits of intimate association by defining marriage as a
union between “one man and one woman.” The other law, the
Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation
Act
(PRWORA), injures or disables poor single mothers’ basic civil
rights because they are not married. One law withholds from
les-
bians and gay men the right to become marital citizens; the
other
punishes poor single mothers for not choosing marital
citizenship.
I want to explore, here, how the federal government wields
its power over certain women who are not married and what that
means for equality. Feminist and other advances in the late
twen-
tieth century have enabled many women to defer, avoid, or exit
Yet, despite judicial signals that the
choice to not marry or to unmarry
5. were among the intimate associational
liberties at the core of democratic
personhood, government continues to
treat marriage as a necessary
condition of worthy adult citizenship.
B O O K S I N R E V I E W
From Welfare to Wedlock:
Marriage Promotion and Poor Mothers’ Inequality
Gwendolyn Mink
chf
from marriages, sometimes without suffering opprobrium. For
women with children, however, such choices exact heavy costs:
single mothers pay for their intimate decisions with their mate-
rial security and with their rights. Government argues “child
well-being” to justify its interventions into the associational
autonomy of single mothers—especially if they are poor.
Wielding the choice to bear children against the choice to not
marry, government delivers some of the most severe blows to
women’s equality. One need only examine welfare policy,
which
aims to end unmarried mothers’ marital status rather than their
poverty, to see how.
I
6. Let me turn now to the Temporary
Assistance to Needy Families program
(TANF), which the Personal Responsi-
bility Act created when it “reformed”
welfare 1996. In its famous “findings,”
the TANF provision of the PRWORA
blames countless social ills on Black
single mothers; in its statement of pur-
pose, TANF policy pledges to promote
marriage, reduce out-of-wedlock births,
and to “encourage the formation and maintenance of two-parent
families.”5
Toward these ends, TANF subjects single mothers to work
rules that deprive them of the right and the flexibility to make
parenting decisions about the care needs of their children. It
sub-
jects them to paternity disclosure rules that vitiate their sexual
and reproductive privacy. It subjects them to family formation
rules, which confer social and financial fatherhood on biologi-
cal fathers (and instantiate their legal rights) regardless of a
mother’s say. In these ways and more, TANF punishes single
motherhood, endangering the physical, emotional, and material
security of poor mothers and their children, jeopardizing poor
mothers’ custody of their own children, and negating their right
to form intimate associations on their own terms.
As Public Vows convincingly demonstrates, governmental
interference in intimate life—especially in the formation of
fam-
ilies through marriage—has almost always forwarded dominant
societal and governmental goals for racial and gender order.
That’s what anti-miscegenation laws were all about. That’s what
coverture was all about. That’s what countless immigration and
naturalization laws were all about, laws that restricted the entry
of wives and women, or that stripped U.S. women of citizenship
7. if they married non-citizen men.
TANF recapitulates the racialized, undemocratic, patriarchal
tradition in its pronouncements and punishments regarding
child-
bearing and childrearing by single mothers. Marriage serves
sev-
eral functions in TANF: it privatizes poverty; it reaffirms patri-
archy; and it spotlights women of color as moral failures.
Noting the color of welfare and the color of nonmarital moth-
ers who are poor,6 TANF proponents attribute the need for wel-
fare to the moral or cultural def icits of racialized individuals
rather than to racialized opportunities and economic conditions.
For example, the 2000 Green Book, published by the House
Ways
and Means Committee, proclaimed in retrospect: TANF stakes
itself to “the perspicacity of Moynihan’s vision” that “[B]lack
Americans [are] held back economically and socially in large
part because their family structure [is] deteriorating.”7
According
to this argument, single-mother poverty arises from single
moth-
ers’ failure to choose marriage; in turn, the failure to marry is a
measure of single mothers’ impover-
ished citizenship.
TANF’s most extensive efforts to
push mothers into heterosexual fami-
lies headed by fathers arise from its
child support and paternity establish-
ment requirements affecting mothers.
These provisions do not go so far as to
compel marriage or residential co-par-
8. enting, but they do require mothers to
maintain association with biological
fathers (so that they can inform on them!) even if mothers do
not want biological fathers involved with their children. Under
the paternity establishment provision, a mother must disclose
the identity of her child’s biological father or must permit the
government to examine her sex life so that it can discover the
DNA paternal match for her child. Under the child support
enforcement provision, a mother must help government locate
her child’s biological father so that the government can collect
reimbursement from him for the mother’s TANF benef it. A
mandatory minimum sanction against families in which moth-
ers do not cooperate in establishing paternity or collecting child
support enforces government’s determination that a biological
reproductive nexus constitutes a social family.
Numerous other TANF provisions and guidelines promote
marriage either directly or by discouraging women from bear-
ing children if they are not married. For example, executive
branch guidelines for TANF implementation reward states for
promoting marriage. The Department of Health and Human
Services awards a TANF “high performance bonus” to states
that
most increase the percentage of children living in married par-
ent families. Moreover, HHS guidelines specifically tell states
that, given the purposes of TANF, they can develop pro-
marriage
policies with TANF funds.8 As a result, several states have used
TANF funds to disseminate the pro-marriage message, to pro-
vide marriage classes, or to reward actual marriage in the struc-
ture of TANF benef its (as does West Virginia through $100
P U B L I C V O W S B Y N A N C Y F . C O T T
Wielding the choice to bear children
9. against the choice to not marry, govern-
ment delivers some of the most severe
blows to women’s equality. One need
only examine welfare policy, which aims
to end unmarried mothers’ marital status
rather than their poverty, to see how.
Volume 11, Number 3, 2002 69
monthly bonus for TANF families in which parents are
married).
Another TANF provision gives incentives to states to reduce
“illegitimacy.” The “illegitimacy bonus” provides extra money
to states that achieve the greatest reductions in nonmarital
births
without increasing their abortion rates.9 The bonus gives states
a green light to interfere in unmarried women’s intimate family
decisions, including reproductive decisions—such as by offer-
ing bonuses to unmarried pregnant women who agree to relin-
quish their babies at childbirth; by pressuring unmarried
pregnant
recipients to marry; or by encouraging or rewarding long-term
contraception by unmarried women who are poor.
Abstinence-only education is yet another prong of the federal
effort to prevent childbearing by unmarried women. This provi-
sion of the 1996 welfare law pays states
to teach “groups which are most likely
to bear children out-of-wedlock” that
“sexual activity outside the context of
marriage is likely to have harmful psy-
10. chological and physical effects” and that
one should “attain[] self-suff iciency
before engaging in sexual activity.”10
These and other TANF provisions
compromise poor mothers’ rights, more
so if they never have been married. The
rights compromised include intimate
association, reproductive and sexual pri-
vacy rights, not to mention the right to
parent one’s own children. These rights
abuses are not the haphazard detritus of welfare policy. Rather,
they are the arsenal of marriage promotion among poor women
with children. To all mothers who might want to choose non-
marriage, TANF’s rights abuses send an unmistakable warning
to find a man and stand by him. To mothers who are unmarried
and poor—disproportionately mothers of color—TANF’s rights
abuses teach that the only path out of poverty is through mar-
riage or marriage-like f inancial association with biological
fathers. In these ways, welfare policy makes unmarried moth-
ers’ economic insecurity an opportunity for public intervention
in private choice and an excuse for impoverishing unmarried
mothers’ citizenship.
II
Although the 1996 welfare law was plenty heavy-handed in
promoting marriage and punishing mothers’ independence,
inter-
est currently abounds among policy makers to make that heavy
hand even stronger. The block grants to states that fund the
TANF
program expire in 2002 and the need to reauthorize TANF
spend-
ing has become an occasion to consider how TANF might be
reformed. Many issues are on the table, ranging from how much
11. to spend to whether to allow adult recipients to go to school to
how much work should be required. Views on these matters
vary
across the political spectrum. Less varied are views about
TANF’s
role in engineering marital family formation. Among conserva-
tives, moderates, and even among liberals can be found propos-
als to augment TANF’s capacity to promote marriage and
fatherhood, as well as to prevent sex and reproduction outside
of marriage.
One goal of the family formation agenda is to make fathers
pay for families. As Senator Evan Bayh put it in a recent issue
of the Democratic Leadership Council’s Blueprint magazine,
“we
. . . have to make specific demands of American men. . . . [D]o
not bring children into the world until you are prepared to sup-
port them.”11 Another goal, as Will Marshall, president of the
DLC’s Progressive Policy Institute
stated it in Blueprint, is to promote mar-
riage as a way of choking off inde-
pendent or nonmarital childbearing,
which he calls the “‘feeder system’ for
both welfare and child poverty.”12 Still
a third goal of the family formation
agenda is to return poor mothers and
their children to the patriarchal family
by withholding economic security
unless they do so.
The most extreme calls to turn wel-
fare into a marital family formation pol-
icy come, not surprisingly, from the
Republican right wing. Robert Rector
12. of the Heritage Foundation, for example, has urged policymak-
ers to set aside $1 billion in TANF funds annually for marriage
promotion activities; to offer incentives and rewards to parent
who marry; and to create an affirmative action program in pub-
lic housing for married couples.13 Another leading proponent of
fatherhood and marriage is Wade Horn, the Bush
Administration’s Assistant Secretary of Health and Human
Services for welfare, who supports such proposals as rewarding
women “at risk of bearing a child out of wedlock” with annual
payments of $1000 for f ive years if they bear their f irst child
within marriage and stay married.14
President Bush’s proposal for TANF reauthorization, not sur-
prisingly, advances the family formation agenda. The proposal
begins by amending TANF’s current goal of encouraging the
for-
mation and maintenance of two-parent families to read “to
encourage the formation and maintenance of healthy two-parent
married families and responsible fatherhood.” It goes on to redi-
rect the $100 million “illegitimacy bonus” to fund research and
demonstration projects “primarily directed at building strong
families, reducing out-of-wedlock pregnancies, and promoting
healthy marriages.” It also redirects $100 million in “high per-
formance bonus” funds to support state-level pro-marriage
activ-
B O O K S I N R E V I E W
The bonus gives states a green light to
interfere in unmarried women’s intimate
family decisions, including reproductive
decisions—such as by offering bonuses
to unmarried pregnant women who
agree to relinquish their babies at
13. childbirth; by pressuring unmarried
pregnant recipients to marry;
or by encouraging or rewarding
long-term contraception by
unmarried women who are poor.
70 The Good Society
ities. It further requires states to end “discrimination” against
two-parent married families enrolled in TANF—for example, by
applying the same work rules to single mothers that apply
jointly
to parents in married families. Finally, the Bush proposal
requires
states to submit marriage promotion plans as a condition of
receiving a TANF block grant. These state plans would have to
provide explicit descriptions of state marriage promotion activ-
ities. They also would have to establish annual numerical goals
for marriage so that the federal government can measure the
suc-
cess of state efforts.15
In addition, Bush Administration proposals related to TANF
call for $20 million in grants to faith based and community
groups
to “encourage and help fathers to support their families and
avoid
welfare, improve fathers’ ability to man-
age family business affairs, and encour-
age and support healthy marriages and
married fatherhood.”16 The Bush budget
14. for 2002, meanwhile, has earmarked
$135 million for abstinence-only edu-
cation—a 33 percent increase over cur-
rent spending—to forward the goal of
two-parent family formation by pre-
venting nonmarital pregnancy and child-
bearing.17
Marital family formation is not a con-
servative fringe issue. It is a juggernaut
that has been working its way through Congress since 1998.
Beginning with the first “Fathers Count Act” in 1998, proposals
have offered biological fathers of TANF children ways to
improve
their financial status so that they can fulfill their breadwinner
role;
they have encouraged residential fatherhood, often without con-
sidering the custodial mother’s wishes; and they have promoted
marriage. None of these bills has yet become law, but they have
been quite popular, passing the House of Representatives by
thun-
dering bipartisan majorities in 1999 and 2000.18
These bipartisan majorities have not been accidental. They
reflect the fact that policymakers and policy experts who travel
in more liberal circles also endorse the use of social policy to
teach, encourage, cajole, and reward marriage. Wendell Primus,
of the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, for example, has
argued the importance of marriage for poverty reduction, and
Jesse Jackson Jr., a leading progressive in the House of
Representatives, introduced a fatherhood bill in the 106th
Congress.19 Bipartisan interest in ending single mothers’
poverty
by bringing or forcing biological fathers into their families cre-
ates a very strong likelihood that TANF reauthorization will
cen-
15. trally feature efforts to marry poor single mothers off of
welfare.
Democratic sympathy for the family formation agenda shows
up in several of the Democratic TANF reauthorization bills. In
the Senate, Senators Evan Bayh (D-Indiana) and Tom Carper
(D-Delaware) would reform TANF to promote marriage and
“responsible fatherhood” through pro-marriage counseling and
mentoring, through pro-marriage media and education cam-
paigns, and through similar initiatives designed to convince par-
ents to stay married.20 Other indications of Democratic interest
in promoting marital family formation include provisions in
Senator Jay Rockefeller’s TANF bill that encourage “the forma-
tion and maintenance of 2-parent families and healthy marriages
and reduc[e] nonmarital births.”21
In the House of Representatives, a TANF bill sponsored by
Congressman Ben Cardin (D-Maryland), the ranking Democrat
on the welfare subcommittee of the House Ways and Means
Committee, redirects the “illegitimacy bonus” into a “family
for-
mation fund” much as does the Bush
proposal. Although the Cardin bill does
not mention marriage per se, like the
Bush proposal it would support research
and demonstration projects “(i) pro-
moting the formation of 2-parent fam-
ilies; (ii) reducing teenage pregnancies;
and (iii) increasing the ability of non-
custodial parents to financially support
and be involved with their children.”
Given the limited, heterosexual defini-
tion of family imposed by the Defense
of Marriage Act, Cardin’s promotion of
16. “2-parent families” can only mean father-mother families and
hence the Cardin bill, like the Senate bills and the Bush pro-
posal, encourages marriage or at least marriage-like coupling
between heterosexual adults.
III
Pure and simple, what the family formation agenda is about
is engineering the structure of poor mothers’ families. It’s about
Big Brother dictating what families should look like, and about
punishing families that don’t look “right” by privatizing their
poverty. This threatens personal, cultural, and associational
free-
doms, not to mention the economic well-being of families that
deviate from the prescriptive norm.
The rights won by women since the 1960s are at risk here.
George Bush wants to “improve fathers’ ability to manage fam-
ily business affairs.” Will Marshall and Daniel Lichter want to
prevent unmarried women from having babies. Evan Bayh wants
to teach men “not to bring children into the world” until they
can pay for them. One way or another, perpetrators of marriage
promotion designate marital fathers the kingpins of legitimate
family life.
Think for a minute what this will do to women’s reproductive
rights. These rights—especially the right to make choices about
abortion—are grounded in the constitutional notion that
P U B L I C V O W S B Y N A N C Y F . C O T T
The family formation agenda should not
be confused with an agenda to support
families. In fact, family formation provi-
17. sions in both the Bush and the Bayh-
Carper TANF reauthorization proposals
go hand in hand with harsh new work
requirements, while all of the proposals
mentioned here continue to neglect the
educational and wage opportunities that
precondition economic security.
Volume 11, Number 3, 2002 71
women—not husbands, not boyfriends, not male sexual encoun-
ters, not sperm donors, but women—get to decide whether or
not to bear a child. But according to Senator Bayh, men “bring
children into the world.” Dressed in the appealing language of
“responsible fatherhood,” Bayh’s call for men to refrain from
childbearing “until [they] are prepared to support” children
gives
biological fathers standing as childbearing decisionmakers and
thereby imperils a right that is foundational to women’s equal
and independent personhood.
Among fundamentalist patriarchalists, the argument that wel-
fare policy should be about family formation is racially-charged
and gender-ideological; it turns on what conservatives call their
“family values.” The conservative family formation agenda is
predictable: it was central to their attack on welfare in the
1980s
and 1990s, and it was constitutive of their plans for TANF.
Among moderates and liberals, most of whom embrace gender
and racial equality as their goals, the argument is more instru-
mental and accordingly more insidious. Often, it is linked to the
observation that families with residential, marital fathers tend
18. to
be better off than families without them. As Daniel Lichter
reported in the January issue of the DLC’s Blueprint, “only 6
percent of married couples with children are poor, compared
with 36 percent of female-headed families.”22
The income disparity between married and mother-only fam-
ilies is not surprising, because married-parent families often
have
two incomes and because a father’s income is generally larger
than a mother’s. Rarely does the marriage lobby compare the
incomes of single-mother to single-father families. In 2000,
gen-
der-based income disparities among single parent families con-
signed the majority of nonmarital female-headed families to
economic distress and more than a third of them to abject
poverty.
Nonmarital male-headed families enjoyed far greater economic
security, with fewer than 25 percent earning less than $20,000
annually and only 16 percent earning less than $15,000. Further,
whereas a third of nonmarital male-headed families earned more
than $50,000, only 15 percent of nonmarital female-headed fam-
ilies did so.23 Avoiding these facts permits the conclusion that
it
is family structure rather than inequality that makes and keeps
single-mother families poor.
Contemporary welfare reform instantiates marriage as the
sine qua non of worthy citizenship. Except as a warning, wel-
fare reform has little bearing upon the rights or lives of child-
less adults or of unmarried parents who are not poor. But to be
a poor and unmarried mother in the United States today is to be
unworthy of full citizenship—to be deprived of the rights that
have guaranteed equal personhood since Loving.
We each do not stand on equal footing as participants and
19. actors in public life if we each are not guaranteed decisional
autonomy and relational equity in private life and if we do not
all share the same freedoms to form and sustain families of our
own choosing. Given the long history of government’s gender
and racial regulation of intimate life and the nexus among such
regulation and political, economic, and cultural inequality, the
struggle for intimate rights—to marry or not to, to bear children
or not to, to parent our own children—has been a crucial dimen-
sion of race and gender democratization in the United States.
Though stingy and disciplinary, welfare once contributed might-
ily to the struggle for intimate rights by enabling poor women
to choose children, to parent them, and to do so while exiting or
avoiding marriage. In contrast, welfare now expressly impedes
nonmarital motherhood among poor women by withdrawing
rights and enforcing poverty. Given the racially disparate distri-
bution of poverty,24 welfare’s marriage vise restores the color
line to intimate freedom that Loving, in its day, took away.
Gwendolyn Mink is a professor of women’s studies at Smith
College
Endnotes
1. According to a poll conducted by Andrew Kohut of the Pew
Research Center in late March 2002, by a margin of 79 to 18
per-
cent, Americans said they preferred government to stay out of
the
business of promoting marriage. Reported in David Broder, “An
Unlikely Marriage Broker,” Washington Post, March 31, 2002.
2. Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12.
3. Boddie et al v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371 (1971). See also
United States v. Kras, 409 U.S. 434, 444, distinguishing
20. between
unconstitutional state-imposed financial hurdles to divorce and
con-
stitutionally permissible bankruptcy filing fees.
4. New Jersey Welfare Rights Organization v. Cahill, per
curiam
(1973).
5. PL 104-193, Title I, Sec. 101, Sec. 401.
6. In 24 states in 1999, women of color composed more than
two-thirds of TANF enrollments. Relatedly, the decline in
welfare
caseloads has been more pronounced among whites than among
women of color. Meanwhile, the percentage of single parent
fami-
lies among Blacks (62.3 percent) is more than twice that among
whites (26.6 percent) and the nonmarital birth rate is
substantially
higher among non-Hispanic Blacks (73.4) and Latinas (91.4)
than
among whites (27). U.S. House of Representatives, Committee
on
Ways and Means, 2000 Green Book: Overview of Entitlement
Programs, 106th Congress, 2nd Session (Washington, DC, 2000)
pp. 1238, 1239 (table G-4), 1521.
7. ibid., p. 1519.
8. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Admini-
stration for Children and Families, Off ice of Family
Assistance,
Helping Families Achieve Self-Sufficiency: Guide for Funding
Services for Children and Families through the TANF Program
(Washington, DC, 2000) pp. 3, 19.
21. 9. ibid., Sec. 403(a)(2).
10. PL 104-193, Title IX, Sec. 912.
11. Evan Bayh, “Demanding Responsibility from Men,”
Blueprint Magazine, Democratic Leadership Council (January
22,
B O O K S I N R E V I E W
72 The Good Society
2002),
http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=250090&kaid=
137&subid=258.
12. Will Marshall, “After Dependence,” Blueprint Magazine,
Democratic Leadership Council (January 22, 2002),
http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=250080&kaid=114
&sub
id=143.
13. Robert Rector, “Implementing Welfare Reform and
Restoring
Marriage,” in Stuart M. Butler and Kim Holmes, eds., Heritage
Foundation, Priorities for the President (Washington, DC, 2001)
pp. 71–97;
14. Wade Horn, “Wedding Bell Blues: Marriage and Welfare
Reform,” Brookings Review, vol. 19, no. 3 (2001) pp. 39–42.
15. Bush Administration, Working Toward Independence
(February 26, 2002) p. 20.
22. 16. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, President’s
Budget for HHS, FY 2003: Ensuring A Safe and Healthy
America
(Washington, DC, 2002) p. 84.
17. ibid., pp. 22–23.
18. U.S. House of Representatives, H.R. 3073, Fathers Count
Act of 1999, 106th Congress, 1st Session (Washington, DC,
1999);
H.R. 4678, Child Support Distribution Act of 2000, Title V,
106th
Congress, 2nd Session (Washington, DC, 2000).
19. U.S. House of Representatives, H.R. 4671, The Responsible
Fatherhood Act of 2000, 106th Congress, 2nd Session
(Washington,
DC, 2000).
20. “The Bayh/Carper ‘Work and Family Act,’: An Outline for
TANF Reauthorization,” http://bayh.senate.gov/~bayh/workand-
fambillsum.htm. See also, U.S. Senate, S. 653, Responsible
Fatherhood Act of 2001, 107th Congress, 1st Session
(Washington,
DC, 2001).
21. United States Senate, S. 2052, Sec. 303, “Family Formation
Fund,” (A)(i), 107th Congress, 2nd Session (2002).
22. Daniel T. Lichter, “Promoting Marriage,” Blueprint
Magazine, Democratic Leadership Council (January 22, 2002)
http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=250087&kaid=114
&sub
id=144.
23. Data gathered from U.S. Census Bureau, America’s Families
23. and Living Arrangements: Population Characteristics (June
2001),
especially Table 2: “Family Groups By Type and Selected
Charac-
teristics of the Family.”
24. In 1999, 25.4 percent of non-Hispanic white single mother
families lived below the poverty line as compared to 46.1
percent
of African American and 46.6 percent of Latina single mother
fam-
ilies. U.S. Census Bureau, Poverty in the United States, 1999
(Washington, DC, 2000) table B-3.
P U B L I C V O W S B Y N A N C Y F . C O T T
Volume 11, Number 3, 2002 73
l men want to be squashed <
the filth that they are h '
' are ,'
end themselves against th .
h ·11 1· . e1r t t em, wi c mg in terrort
' h 0 won t protect t em agains
will be in the corner shittin t
' ki k g ,w~ver, wont c or struggle
enjoy the show and ride the
Chapter Eighteen
24. Redstockings Manifesto
I
• After centuries of individual and preliminary political
struggle, women are uniting to
-. achieve their final liberation from male supremacy.
Redstockings is dedicated to
» building this unity and winning our freedom.
II
Women are an oppressed class. Our oppression is total,
affecting every facet of our lives.
We are exploited as sex objects, breeders, domestic servants,
and cheap labor. We are
considered inferior beings, whose only purpose is to enhance
men's lives. Our human-
ity is denied. Our prescribed behavior is enforced by the threat
of physical violence.
Because we have lived so intimately with our oppressors, in
isolation from each
other, we have been kept from seeing our personal suffering as
a political condition.
This creates the illusion that a woman's relationship with her
man is a matter of
interplay between two unique personalities, and can be worked
out individually. In
reality, every such relationship is a class relationship, and the
conflicts between
individual men and women are political conflicts that can only
be solved collectively.
III
25. We identify the agents of our oppression as men. Male
supremacy is the oldest, most
basic form of domination. All other forms of exploitation and
oppression (racism, cap-
italism, imperialism, etc.) are extensions of male supremacy:
men dominate women,
a few men dominate the rest. All power structures throughout
history have been male-
dominated and male-oriented. Men have controlled all political,
economic and cul-
tural institutions and backed up this control with physical force.
They have used their
power to keep women in an inferior position. All men receive
economic, sexual, and
psychological benefits from male supremacy. All men have
oppressed women.
IV
~ttempts have been made to shift the burden of responsibility
from men to institu-
tions or to women themselves. We condemn these arguments as
evasions. Institu-
223
224 REDSTOCKINGS MAN[FESTO
tions alone do not oppress; they are merely tools of the
oppressor. To bla
institutions implies that men and women are equally victimized,
obscures the te
that men benefit from the subordination of women, and gives
26. men the excuse thaq
at ·
they are forced to be oppressors. On the contrary, any man is
free to renounce hi
superior position provided that he is willing to be treated like a
woman by oth;;
men.
We also reject the idea that women consent to or are to blame
for their 0Wn . ·
oppression. Women's submission is not the result of
brainwashing, stupidity,
0
mental illness but of continual, daily pressure from men. We do
not need to chang:
ourselves, but to change men.
The most slanderous evasion of all is that women can oppress
men. The basis for
this illusion is the isolation of individual relationships from
their political context
and the tendency of men to see any legitimate challenge to their
privileges as . •
persecution.
V
We regard our personal experience, and our feelings about that
experience, as the
basis for an analysis of our common situation. We cannot rely
on existing ideologies
as they are all products of male supremacist culture. We
question every generalization
and accept none that are not confirmed by our experience.
27. Our chief task at present is to develop female class
consciousness through sharing
experience and publicly exposing the sexist foundation of all
our institutions. Con-
sciousness-raising is not "therapy," which implies the existence
of individual solu-
tions and falsely assumes that the male-female relationship is
purely personal, but
the only method by which we can ensure that our program for
liberation is based on
the concrete realities of our lives.
The first requirement for raising class consciousness is honesty,
in private and in
public, with ourselves and other women.
VI
We identify with all women. We define our best interest as that
of the poorest, most ··
brutally exploited women.
We repudiate all economic, racial, educational or status
privileges that divide us · ·
from other women. We are determined to recognize and
eliminate any prejudicesweJ
may hold against other women. . :·
We are committed to achieving internal democracy. We will do
whatever 15
to· necessary to ensure that every woman in our movement has
an equal chance .
participate, assume responsibility, and develop her political
potential. ·
28. the oppressor. To bl ·
· · d b <lllle .ctmnze , o scures the c
l zi h lact gives men t e excuse +1.
. f Lltat
nan is ree to renounce hi .
ted like a woman by oth
18
•
el'
.re to blame for their 0
b . hi Wu ramwas mg, stupidity , or
We do not need to chan ge
oppress men. The basis for •
from their political context
enge to their privileges as ,
Redstockings Manifesto 225
VII
call on all our sisters to unite with us in struggle.
~e call on all men to give up their male privileges and support
women's liberation
. he interest of our humanity and their own .
. ·tn ;n fighting for our liberation we will always take the side
of women against their
29. oppressors. We will not ask what is "revolutionary" or
"reformist," only what is
od for women.
:go The time for individual skirmishes has passed. This time we
are going all the way.
,out that experience, as the ···
,t rely on existing ideologies
uestion every generalization ·
e.
isciousness through sharing .
if all our institutions. Con-
x:istence of individual solu-
.hip is purely personal, but
m for liberation is based on
s honesty, in private and in
as that of the poorest, most ·
.us privileges that divide us
eliminate any prejudices we
r. We will do whatever is
nt has an equal chance to
:al potential.
I
I
WAGES
31. $0.70 post free by surface mail from Falling Wall Press
Obtainable from:
Falling Wall Press Ltd., 79 Richmond Road, Montpelier, Bristol
BS6 5:ep
Wages against Housework
They say it is love. We say it is un waged work.
They call it frigidity. We call it absenteeism.
Every miscarriage is a work accident.
Homosexuality and heterosexuality are both working conditions
...
but homosexuality is workers' control of production, not the end
of work.
More smiles? More money. Nothing will be so powerful in
destroying
the healing virtues of a smile.
Neuroses, suicides, desexualisation: occupational diseases of
the housewife.
Many times the difficulties and ambiguities which women
express in
discussing wages for hou~ework stem from the reduction of
wages for
housework to a thing, a lump of money, instead of viewing it as
a political
perspective. The difference between these two standpOints is
32. enormous.
To view wages for housework as a thing rather than a
perspective is to
detach the end result of our struggle from the struggle itself and
to miss
its significance in demystifying and subverting the role to which
women
have been confined in capitalist society.
When we view wages for housework in this reductive way we
start
asking ourselves: what difference could some more money make
to our
lives? We might even agree that for a lot of women who do not
have any
choice except for housework and marriage, it w01lld indeed
make a lot of
difference. But for those of us who seem to have other chOices-
profes-
sional work, enlightened husband, communal way of life, gay
relations or
a combination of these-it would not make much of a difference
at all.
For us there are supposedly other ways of achieving economic
indepen-
dence, and the last thing we want is to get it by identifying
ourselves as
housewives, a fate which we all agree is, so to speak, worse
than death.
The problem with this position is that in our imagination we
usually add
a bit of money to the shitty lives we have now and then ask, so
what?
on the false premise that we could ever get that money without
at the
same time revolutionising-in the process of struggling for it-all
33. our
family and social relations. But if we take wages for housework
as a
political perspective, we can see that struggling for it is going
to produce
a revolution in our lives and in our social power as women. It is
also clear
that if we think we do not 'need' that money, it is because we
have accept·
ed the particular forms of prostitution of body and mind by
which we get
the money to hide that need. As I will try to show, not only is
wages for
housework a revolutionary perspective, but it is the only
revolutionary
perspective from a feminist viewpoint and ultimately for the
entire
working class.
'A labour of love'
It is impertant to recognise that when we speak of housework
we are
not speaking of a job as other jobs, but we are speaking of the
most
pervasive manipulation, the most subtle and mystified violence
that capi-
talism has ever perpetrated against any section of the working
class. True,
under capitalism every worker is manipulated and exploited and
his/her
relation to capital is totally mystified. The wage gives the
impression of a
34. fair deal: you work and you get paid, hence you and your boss
are equal;
while in reality the wage, rather than paying for the work you
do, hides all
the unpaid work that goes into profit. But the wage at least
recognises
that you are a worker, and you can bargain and struggle around
and against
the terms and the quantity of that wage, the terms and the
quantity of
that work. To have a wage means to be part of a social contract,
and there
is no doubt concerning its meaning: you work, not because you
like it, or
because it comes naturally to you, but because it is the only
condition
under which you are allowed to live. But exploited as you might
be,You
are not that work. Today you are a postman, tomorrow a
cabdriver. All
that matters is how much of that work you have to do and how
much of
that money you can get.
But in the case of housework the situation is qualitatively
different.
The difference lies in the fact that not only has housework been
imposed
on women, but it has been transformed into a natural attribute
of our
female physique and personality, an internal need, an aspiration,
suppo-
sedly coming from the depth of our female character.
Housework had to
be transformed into a natural attribute rather than be recognised
as a social
35. contract because from the beginning of capital's scheme for
women this
work was destined to be unwaged. Capital had to convince us
that it is a
natural, unavoidable and even fulfIlling activity to make us
accept our
unwaged work. In its tum, the unwaged condition of housework
has been
the most powerful weapon in reinforcing the common
assumption that
housework is not work, thus preventing women from struggling
against it,
except in the privatised kitchen-bedroom quarrel that all society
agrees to
2
ridicule, thereby further reducing the protagonist of a struggle.
We are
seen as nagging bitches, not workers in struggle.
Yet just how natural it is to be a housewife is shown by the fact
that it takes at least twenty years of socialisation-day-to·day
training,
performed by an unwaged mother-to prepare a woman for this
role,
to convince her that children and husband are the best she can
expect
from life. Even so, it hardly succeeds. No matter how well
trained
we are, few are the women who do not feel cheated when the
bride's
day is over and they find themselves in front of a dirty sink.
Many of us
still have the illusion that we marry for love. A lot of us
recognise that
36. we marry for money and security; but it is time to make it clear
that
while the love or money involved is very little, the work which
awaits us
is enormous. This is why older women always tell us 'Enjoy
your freedom
while you can, buy whatever you want now .. .' But
unfortunately it is
almost impossible to enjoy any freedom if from the earliest days
of life
you are trained to be docile, subservient, dependent and most
important
to sacrifice yourself and even to get pleasure from it. If you
don't like it,
it is your problem, your failure, your guilt, your abnormality.
We must admit that capital has been very successful in hiding
our
work. It has created a true masterpiece at the expense of
women. By
denying housework a wage and transforming it into an act of
love, capital
has killed many birds with one stone. First of all, it has got a
hell of a lot
of work almost for free, and it has made sure that women, far
from
struggling against it, would seek that work as the best thing in
life (the
magic words: 'Yes, darling, you are a real woman'). At the same
time, it
has disciplined the male worker also·, by making his woman
dependent on
his work and his wage, and trapped him in this discipline by
giving him a
servant after he himself has done so much serving at the factory
or the
37. office. In fact, our role as women is to be the unwaged but
happy, and
most of all loving, servants of the 'working class', i.e. those
strata of the
proletariat to which capital was forced to grant more social
power. In the
same way as god created Eve to give pleasure to Adam, so did
capital
create the housewife to service the male worker physically,
emotionally.
and sexually-to raise his children, mend his socks, patch up his
ego when
it is crushed by the work and·the social relations (which are
relations of
loneliness) that capital has reserved for him. It is precisely this
peculiar
combination of physical, emotional and sexual services that are
involved
in the role women must perform for capital that creates the
specific
character of that servant which is the housewife, that makes her
work so
burdensome and at the same time invisible. It is not an accident
that
most men start thinking of getting married as soon as they get
their first
job. This is not only because now they can afford it, but because
having
somebody at home who takes care of you is the only condition
not to go
3
crazy after a day spent on an assembly line or at a desk. Every
38. woman
knows that this is what she should be doing to be a true woman
and have
a 'successful' marriage. And in this case too, the poorer the
family the
higher the enslavement of the woman, and not simply because
~f the
monetary situation. In fact capital has a dual policy, one for the
middle
class and one for the proletarian family. It is no accident that
we find the
most unsophistioated machismo in the working class family: the
more
blows the man gets at work the more his wife must be trained to
absorb
them, the more he is allowed to recover his ego at her expense.
You beat
your wife and vent your. rage against her when you are
frustrated or
overtired by your work or when you are defeated in a struggle
(to go into
a factory is itself a defeat). The more the man serves and is
bossed around,
the more he bosses around. A man's home is his castle ... and
his wife has
to learn to wait in silence when he is moody, to put him back
together
when he is broken down and swears at the world, to turn around
in bed
when he says 'I'm too tired tonight,' or when he goes so fast at
love-
making that, as one woman put it, he might as well make it with
a
mayonnaise jar. (Women have always found ways of fighting
back, or
getting back at them, but always in an isolated and privatised
39. way. The
problem, then, becomes how to bring this struggle out of the
kitchen and
bedroom and into the streets.)
This fraud that goes under the name oflove and marriage affects
all of
us, even if we are not married, because once housework was
totally
naturalised and sexualised, once it became a feminine attribute,
all of us
as females are characterised by it. If it is natural to do certain
things,
then all women are expected to do them and even like doing
them-even
those women who, due to their social position, could escape
some of that
work or most of it (their husbands can afford maids and shrinks
and other
forms of relaxation and amusement). We might not serve one
man, but we
are all in a servant relation with respect to the whole male
world. This is
why to be called a female is such a putdown, such a degrading
thing.
('Smile, honey, what's the matter with you?' is something every
man feels
entitled to ask you, whether he is your husband, or the man who
takes
your.ticket, or your boss at work.)
The revolutionary perspective
Ifwe start from this analysis we can see the revolutionary
implications
of the demand for wages for housework. It is the demand by
40. which our
nature ends and our struggle begins because just to want wages
for house-
work means to refuse that work as the expression of our nature,
and
therefore to refuse precisely the female role that capital has
invented for
us.
4
)
)
)
}
To ask for wages for housework will by itself undermine the
expectations society has of us, since these expectations-the
essence of
our socialisation-are all functional to our wageless condition in
the home.
In this sense, it is absurd to compare the struggle of women for
wages to
the struggle of male workers in the factory for more wages. The
waged
worker in struggling for more wages challenges his social role
but remains
within it. When we struggle for wages we struggle
unambiguously and
directly against our social role. In the same way there is a
qualitative
difference between the struggles of the waged worker and the
struggles of
41. the slave for a wage against that slavery. It should be clear,
however, that
when we struggle for a wage we do not struggle to enter
capitalist relations,
because we have never been out of them. We struggle to break
capital's
plan for women, which is an essential moment of that planned
division of
labour and social power within the working class, through
which capital
has been able to maintain its power. Wages for housework, then,
is a
revolutionary demand not because by itself it destroys capital,
but because
it attacks capital and forces it to restructure social relations in
terms more
favourable to us and consequently more favourable to the unity
of the
class. In fact, to demand wages for housework does not mean to
say that
if we are paid we will continue to do it. It means preCisely the'
opposite. To
say that we want money for housework is the first step towards
refUSing
to do it, because the demand for a wage makes our work visible,
which is
the most indispensable condition to begin to struggle against it,
both in
its immediate aspect as hqusework and its mqre insidious
character as
femininity. .
Against any accusation of 'economism' we should remember that
money is capital, i.e. it is the power to command labour.
Therefore to
reappropriate that money which is the fruit of our labour-of our
42. mothers'
and grandmothers' labour- means at the same time to undermine
capital's power to command forced labour from us. And we
should not
distrust the power of the wage in demystifying our femaleness
and making
visible our work-our femaleness as work- since the lack of a.
wage has
been so powerful in shaping this role and hiding our work. To
demand
wages for housework is to make it visible that our minds, bodies
and
emotions have all been distorted for a specific function, in a
specific
function, and then have been ·thrown back at us as a model to
which we
should all conform if we want to be accepted as women in this
society.
To say that we want wages for housework is to expose the fact
that
housework is already money for capital, that capital has made
and makes
money out of our cooking, smiling, fucking. At the same time, it
shows
that we have cooked, smiled, fucked throughout the years not
because it
was easier for us than for anybody else, but because we did not
have any
other choice. Our faces have become distorted from so much
smiling, our
5
43. feelings have got lost from so much loving, our
oversexualisation has left
us completely desexualised.
Wages for housework is only the beginning, but its message is
clear:
from now on they have to pay us because as females we do not
guarantee
anything any longer. We want to call work what is work so that
eventu·
ally we might rediscover what is love and create what will be
our sexuality
which we have never known. And from the viewpoint of work
we can ask
not one wage but many wages, because we have been forced
into many
jobs at once. We are housemaids, prostitutes, nurses, shrinks;
this is the
essence of the 'heroic' spouse who is celebrated on 'Mother's
Day'. We say:
stop celebrating our exploitation, our supposed heroism. From
now on we
want money for each moment of it, so that we can refuse some
of it and
eventually-ail-of it. In this respect nothing can be more
effective than to
show that our female virtues have a calculable money value,
until today
only for capital, increased in the measure that we were defeated;
from
now on against capital for us. in the measure we organise our
power.
The struggle for social services
This is the most radical perspective we can adopt because
44. although we
can ask for everything, day care, equal pay, free laundromats,
we will
never achieve any real change unless we attack our female role
at its
roots. Our struggle for social services, i.e. for better working
conditions,
will always be frustrated if we do not first establish that our
work is
work. Unless we struggle against the totality of it we will never
achieve
victories with respect to any of its moments. We will fail in the
struggle
for the free laundromats unless we first struggle against the fact
that we
cannot love except at the price of endless work, which day after
day
cripples our bodies, our sexuality, our social relations, unless
we first
escape the blackmail whereby our need to give and receive
affection is
turned against us as a work duty for which we constantly feel
resentful
against our husbands, children and friends, and guilty for that
resent-
ment. Getting a second job does not change that role, as years
and years
of female work outside the house still witness. The second job
not only
increases our exploitation, but simply reproduces our role in
different
forms. Wherever we tum we can see that the jobs women
perform are
mere extensions of the housewife condition in all its
implications. That is,
not only do we become nurses, maids, teachers, secretaries-all
45. functions
for which we are well trained in the home-but we are in the
same bind
that hinders our struggles in the home: isolation, the fact that
other
people's lives depend on us, or the impossibility to see where
our work
begins and ends, where our work ends and our desires begin. Is
bringing
coffee to your boss and chatting with him about his marital
problems
6
secretarial work or is it a personal favour? Is the fact that we
have to
worry about our looks on the job a condition of work or is it the
result of
female vanity? (Until recently airline stewardesses in the United
States
were periodically weighed and had to be constantly on a diet-a
torture
that all women know-for fear of being laid off.) As is often
said-when
the needs of the waged labour market require her presence
there-' A
woman can do any job without losing her femininity,' which
simply
means that no matter what you do you are still a cunt.
As for the proposal of socialisation and collectivisation of
housework,
a couple of examples will be sufficient to draw a line between
these alter-
natives and our perspective. It is one thing to set up a day care
centre the
46. way we want it, and demand that the State pay for it. It is quite
another
thing to deliver our children to the State and ask the State to
control
them, diScipline them, teach them to honour the American flag
not for
five hours, but for fifteen or twenty-four hours. It is one thing
to
organise communally the way we want to eat (by ourselves, in
groups,
etc.) and then ask the State to pay for it, and it is the opposite
thing to ask
the State to organise our meals. In one case we regain some
control over
our lives, in the other we extend the State's control over us.
The struggle against housework
.~
Some women say: how is wages for housework going to change
the
attitudes of our husbands towards us? Won't our husbands still
expect
the same duties as before and even more than before once we
are paid for
them? But these women do not see that they can expect so much
from us
precisely because we are not paid for our work, because they
assume that
it is 'a woman's thing' which does not cost us much effort. Men
are able
to accept our services and take pleasure in them because they
presume
that housework is easy for us, that we enjoy it because we do it
for their
love. They actually expect us to be grateful because by
47. marrying us or
living with us they have given us the opportunity to express
ourselves as
women (I.e. to serve them), 'You are lucky you have found a
man like
me'. Only when men see our work as work-our love as work-and
most
important our determination to refuse both, will they change
their
attitude towards us. When hundreds and thousands of women
are in the
streets saying that endless cleaning, being always emotionally
available,
fucking at command for fear ofIosing our jobs is hard, hated
work which
wastes our lives, then they will be scared and feel undermined
as men.
But this is the best thing that can happen from their own point
of view,
because by exposing the way capital has kept us divided (capital
has
disciplined them through us and us through them-each other,
against
each other), we-their crutches, their slaves, their chains-open
the process
7
of their liberation. In this sense wages for housework will be
much more
educational than trying to prove that we can work as well as
them, that we
can do the same jobs. We leave this worthwhile effort to the
'career
48. woman', the woman who escapes from her oppression not
through the
power of unity and struggle, but through the power of the
master, the
power to oppress-usually other women. And we don't have to
prove that
~e can 'break the bl~e collar barrier'. A lot of us broke that
barrier a long
tIme ago and have dIscovered that the overalls did not give us
more power
than the apron; if possible even less, because now we had to
wear both and
had less time and energy to struggle against them. The things
we have to
,!rov~ are our capacity to expose what we are already doing,
what capital
IS domg to us and our power in the struggle against it.
Unfortunately, many women-particularly single women-are
afraid of
th~ perspective of wages for housework because they are afraid
of identi-
fymg even for a second with the housewife. They know that this
is the
most powerless position in society and so they do not want to
realise that
they are housewives too. This is precisely their weakness, a
weakness
which is maintained and perpetuated through the lack of self-
identification.
We want and have to say that we are all housewives, we are all
prostitutes
and we are all gay, because until we recognise our slavery we
cannot
recognise our struggle against it, because as long as we think
we are some-
49. thing better, something different than a housewife, we accept
the logic of
the master, which is a logic of division, and for us the logic of
slavery. We
are all housewives because no matter where we are they can
always count
on more work from us, more fear on our side to put forward our
demands,
and less pressure on them for money, since hopefully our minds
are
directed elsewhere, to that man in our present or our future who
will
'take care of us'_
And we also delude ourselves that we can escape housework.
But how
many of us, in spite of working outside the house, have escaped
it? And
can we really so easily disregard the idea of living with a man?
What if we
lose our jobs? What about ageing and losing even the minimal
amount of
power that youth (productivity) and attractiveness (female
productivity)
afford us today? And what about children? Will we ever regret
having
chosen no~ to have them, not even having been able to
realistically ask
that .questI?n? ~d can we afford gay relations? Are we willing
to pay the
pOSSIble pnce of Isolation and exclusion? But can we really
afford
relations with men?
The question is: why are these our only alternatives and what
kind of
50. struggle will move us beyond them?
New York, Spring 1974
8
ALL WORJ( AND NO PAY
WOMEN. HOUSEWORK. AND 11IE WAGES DUE
edited by Wendy Edmond and Suzie F'IeminJ
published by FaJUna WaD Press and PoWer of Women
Collective
1st edition, September 1975 128 paps
hardback ISBN 0 9502702 3 7
paperback ISBN 09502702 2 9
Workins in a Mexican viDa. or in one of the moat prosreaiVe
hospitlla
in New York; JivinS with a man or with another woman;
orpnilins in
Northern Ireland or Canada or Italy; what is it that aD these
women have
in common?
This book shows how women's lives are shaped by houaework,
lack of
money and depenclenc:e on men. It shows too how women are r
..... tins to
chanp that, in many different ways.
The book includes artieies, leaflets and speeches on: the
Mother-Led Union
in Canada, Asian women in Britain,lesbian women, women's r
..... t apinat
sterilisation and for the money to have cbildren, women's fJpt
for
abortion, women on welfare "married to the State". the sinsle
51. housewife,
women in the Third World; and a whole section on nunins. "a
job like
any other."
"All Work and No Pay ... is II
powerful indictment 0/ all
aspects o/lOCiety. including
unwmtmd radiCtll politiCl.
that have not deDIt with the
most billie and important
lWJrk to its survival. .. -Marsie
Crow, Ol/Our Bacia. Vol. V .•
No.IO, December 1975.
