Fair Use Blog

“Goodbye to All That,” by Robin Morgan (1970)

In the late 1960s and early 1970s, Rat, was one of the leading counterculture / New Left newspapers in New York City. In January 1970, a group of women who worked at Rat, fed up with the increasingly aggressive sexism of the paper’s content and internal hierarchies, took over the newspaper and, with the help of women from Women’s Liberation groups in New York, converted it into a feminist newspaper. In the first issue, Robin Morgan (then a member of W.I.T.C.H.) contributed Goodbye to All That. The article has since been reprinted widely in anthologies of radical feminist writing; this copy is based on the reprint that appears in Dear Sisters: Dispatches from the Women’s Liberation Movement. A slightly different version appears, together with a long introduction and explanatory footnotes, in Morgan’s The Word of a Woman: Feminist Dispatches 1968–1992.

Goodbye to All That

So, Rat has been liberated, for this week, at least. Next week? If the men return to reinstate the porny photos, the sexist comic strips, the nude-chickie covers (along with their patronizing rhetoric about being in favor of women’s liberation)—if this happens, our alternatives are clear. Rat must be taken over permanently by women—or Rat must be destroyed. (¶ 1)

Why Rat? Why not EVO or even the obvious new pornzines (Mafia-distributed alongside the human pornography of prostitution)? First, they’ll get theirs—but it won’t be by a takeover, which is reserved for something at least worth taking over. Nor should they be censored. They should just be helped not to exist—by any means necessary. But Rat, which has always tried to be a really radical cum lifestyle paper, that’s another matter. It’s the liberal cooptative masks on the face of sexist hate and fear, worn by real nice guys we all know and like, right? We have met the enemy and he’s our friend. And dangerous. What the hell, let the chicks do an issue; maybe it’ll satisfy ‘em for a while, it’s a good controversy, and it’ll maybe sell papers runs an unoverheard conversation that I’m sure took place at some point last week. (¶ 2)

And that’s what I wanted to write about—the friends, brothers, lovers in the counterfeit male-dominated Left. The good guys who think they know what Women’s Lib, as they so chummily call it, is all about—who then proceed to degrade and destroy women by almost everything they say and do: The cover on the last issue of Rat (front and back). The token pussy power or clit militancy articles. The snide descriptions of women staffers on the masthead. The little jokes, the personal ads, the smile, the snarl. No more, brothers. No more well-meaning ignorance, no more cooptation, no more assuming that this thing we’re all fighting for is the same; one revolution under man, with liberty and justice for all. No more. (¶ 3)

Let’s run it down. White males are most responsible for the destruction of human life and environment on the planet today. Yet who is controlling the supposed revolution to change all that? White males (yes, yes, even with their pasty fingers back in black and brown pies again). It could just make one a bit uneasy. It seems obvious that a legitimate revolution must be led by, made by those who have been most oppressed: black, brown, yellow, red, and white women—with men relating to that the best they can. A genuine Left doesn’t consider anyone’s suffering irrelevant or titillating; nor does it function as a microcosm of capitalist economy, with men competing for power and status at the top, and women doing all the work at the bottom (and functioning as objectified prizes or coin as well). Goodbye to all that. (¶ 4)

Run it all the way down. (¶ 5)

Goodbye to the male-dominated peace movement, where sweet old Uncle Dave can say with impunity to a woman on the staff of Liberation magazine, The trouble with you is you’re an aggressive woman. (¶ 6)

Goodbye to the straight male-dominated Left: to PL, who will allow that some workers are women, but won’t see all women (say, housewives) as workers (blind as the System itself); to all the old Left-over parties who offer their Women’s Liberation caucuses to us as if that were not a contradiction in terms; to the individual anti-leadership leaders who hand-pick certain women to be leaders and then relate only to them, either in the male Left or in Women’s Liberation—bringing their hang-ups about power dominance and manipulation to everything they touch. (¶ 7)

Goodbye to the Weather Vain, with the Stanley Kowalski image and theory of free sexuality but practice of sex on demand for males. Left Out!—not Right On!—to the Weather Sisters who (and they know better—they know) reject their own radical feminism for that last desperate grab at male approval that we all know so well, for claiming that the machismo style and the gratuitous violence is their own style by free choice, and for believing that this is the way for a woman to make her revolution…all the while, oh my sister, not meeting my eyes because Weathermen chose Charles Manson as their—and your—hero. (Honest, at least, since Manson is only the logical extreme of the normal American male’s fantasy, whether he is Dick Nixon or Mark Rudd: master of a harem, women to do all the shitwork, from raising babies and cooking and hustling to killing people on command.) Goodbye to all that shit that sets women apart from women; shit that covers the face of any Weatherwoman which is the face of any Manson Slave which is the face of Sharon Tate which is the face of Mary Jo Kopechne which is the face of Beulah Saunders, which is the face of me which is the face of Pat Nixon which is the face of Pat Swinton. In the dark we are all the same—and you better believe it: we’re in the dark, baby. (Remember the old joke: Know what they call a black man with a Ph.D.? A nigger. Variations: Know what they call a Weatherwoman? A heavy cunt. Know what they call a hip revolutionary woman? A groovy cunt. Know what they call a radical militant feminist? A crazy cunt. Amerika is a land of free choice—take your pick of titles.) Left Out, my sister—don’t you see? Goodbye to the illusion of strength when you run hand in hand with your oppressors; goodbye to the dream that being in the leadership collective will get you anything but gonorrhea. (¶ 8)

Goodbye to RYM II, as well, and all the other RYMs—not that the sisters there didn’t pull a cool number by seizing control, but because they let the men back in after only a day or so of self-criticism on male chauvinism. (And goodbye to the inaccurate blanket use of that phrase, for that matter: male chauvinism is an attitude—male supremacy is the objective reality, the fact.) Goodbye to the Conspiracy, who, when lunching with fellow sexist bastards Norman Mailer and Terry Southern in a Bunny-type club in Chicago found Judge Hoffman at the neighboring table—no surprise: in the light they are all the same. (¶ 9)

Goodbye to Hip culture and the so-called Sexual Revolution, which has functioned toward women’s freedom as did the Reconstruction toward former slaves—reinstituting oppression by another name. Goodbye to the assumption that Hugh Romney is safe in his cultural revolution, safe enough to refer to our women, who make all our clothes without somebody not forgiving that. Goodbye to the arrogance of power indeed that lets Czar Stan Freeman of the Electric Circus sleep without fear at night, or permits Tomi Ungerer to walk unafraid in the street after executing the drawings for the Circus advertising campaign against women. Goodbye to the idea that Hugh Hefner is groovy ‘cause he lets Conspirators come to parties at the Playboy Mansion—goodbye to Hefner’s dream of a ripe old age. Goodbye to Tuli and the Fugs and all the boys in the front room—who always knew they hated the women they loved. Goodbye to the notion that good ol’ Abbie is any different from any other up-and-coming movie star who ditches the first wife and kids, good enough for the old days but awkward once you’re Making It. Goodbye to his hypocritical double standard that reeks through the tattered charm. Goodbye to lovely pro-Women’s Liberationist Paul Krassner, with all his astonished anger that women have lost their sense of humor on this issue and don’t laugh any more at little funnies that degrade and hurt them: farewell to the memory of his Instant Pussy aerosol-can poster, to his column for the woman-hating men’s magazine Cavalier, to his dream of a Rape-In against legislators’ wives, to his Scapegoats and Realist Nuns and cute anecdotes about the little daughter he sees as often as any properly divorced Scarsdale middle-aged father; goodbye forever to the notion that a man is my brother who, like Paul, buys a prostitute for the night as a birthday gift for a male friend, or who, like Paul, reels off the names in alphabetical order of people in the women’s movement he has fucked, reels off names in the best locker-room tradition—as proof that he’s no sexist oppressor. (¶ 10)

Let it all hang out. Let it seem bitchy, catty, dykey, Solanisesque, frustrated, crazy, nutty, frigid, ridiculous, bitter, embarrassing, man-hating, libelous, pure, unfair, envious, intuitive, low-down, stupid, petty, liberating. We are the women that men have warned us about. (¶ 11)

And let’s put one lie to rest for all time: the lie that men are oppressed, too, by sexism—the lie that there can be such a thing as men’s liberation groups. Oppression is something that one group of people commits against another group specifically because of a threatening characteristic shared by the latter group—skin color or sex or age, etc. The oppressors are indeed fucked up by being masters (racism hurts whites, sexual stereotypes are harmful to men) but those masters are not oppressed. Any master has the alternative of divesting himself of sexism or racism; the oppressed have no alternative—for they have no power—but to fight. In the long run, Women’s Liberation will of course free men—but in the short term it’s going to cost men a lot of privilege, which no one gives up willingly or easily. Sexism is not the fault of women—kill your fathers, not your mothers. (¶ 12)

Run it down. Goodbye to a beautiful new ecology movement that could fight to save us all if it would stop tripping off women as earthmother types or frontier chicks, if it would right now cede leadership to those who have not polluted the planet because that action implies power and women haven’t had any power in about 5,000 years, cede leadership to those whose brains are as tough and clear as any man’s but whose bodies are also unavoidably aware of the locked-in relationship between humans and their biosphere—the earth, the tides, the atmosphere, the moon. Ecology is no big shtick if you’re a woman—it’s always been there. (¶ 13)

Goodbye to the complicity inherent in the Berkeley Tribesmen being part publishers of Trashman Comics; goodbye, for that matter, to the reasoning that finds whoremaster Trashman a fitting model, however comic-strip far-out, for a revolutionary man—somehow related to the same Super-male reasoning that permits the first statement on Women’s Liberation and male chauvinism that came out of the Black Panther Party to be made by a man, talking a whole lot about how the sisters should speak up for themselves. Such ignorance and arrogance ill-befits a revolutionary. (¶ 14)

We know how racism is worked deep into the unconscious by the System—the same way sexism is, as it appears in the very name of The Young Lords. What are you if you’re a macho woman—a female Lord? Or, god forbid, a Young Lady? Change it, change it to the Young Gentry if you must, or never assume that the name itself is innocent of pain, of oppression. (¶ 15)

Theory and practice—and the light-years between them. Do it! says Jerry Rubin in Rat’s last issue—but he doesn’t or every Rat reader would have known the pictured face next to his article as well as they know his own much-photographed face: it was Nancy Kurshan, his woman, the power behind the clown. (¶ 16)

Goodbye to the New Nation and Earth People’s Park for that matter, conceived by men, announced by men, led by men—doomed before birth by the rotting seeds of male supremacy transplanted into fresh soil. Was it my brother who listed human beings among the objects that would be easily available after the Revolution: Free grass, free food, free women, free acid, free clothes, etc.? Was it my brother who wrote Fuck your women till they can’t stand up and said that groupies were liberated chicks ‘cause they dug a tit-shake instead of a handshake? The epitome of male exclusionism—men will make the Revolution—and make their chicks. Not my brother. No. Not my revolution. Not one breath of my support for the new counterfeit Christ—John Sinclair. Just one less to worry about for ten years. I do not choose my enemy for my brother. (¶ 17)

Goodbye, goodbye. To hell with the simplistic notion that automatic freedom for women—or nonwhite peoples—will come about zap! with the advent of a socialist revolution. Bullshit. Two evils pre-date capitalism and clearly have been able to survive and post-date socialism: sexism and racism. Women were the first property when the Primary Contradiction occurred: when one-half of the human species decided to subjugate the other half, because it was different, alien, the Other. From there it was an easy enough step to extend the concept of Other to someone of different skin shade, different height or weight or language—or strength to resist. Goodbye to those simple-minded optimistic dreams of socialist equality all our good socialist brothers want us to believe. How merely liberal a politics that is! How much further we will have to go to create those profound changes that would give birth to a genderless society. Profound, Sister. Beyond what is male or female. Beyond standards we all adhere to now without daring to examine them as male-created, male-dominated, male-fucked-up, and in male self-interest. Beyond all known standards, especially those easily articulated revolutionary ones we all rhetorically invoke. Beyond—to a species with a new name, that would not dare define itself as Man. (¶ 18)

I once said, I’m a revolutionary, not just a woman, and knew my own lie even as I said the words. The pity of that statement’s eagerness to be acceptable to those whose revolutionary zeal no one would question, i.e., any male supremacist in the counterleft. But to become a true revolutionary one must first become one of the oppressed (not organize or educate or manipulate them, but become one of them)—or realize that you are one already. No woman wants that. Because that realization is humiliating, it hurts. It hurts to understand that at Woodstock or Altamont a woman could be declared uptight or a poor sport if she didn’t want to be raped. It hurts to learn that the sisters still in male-Left captivity are putting down the crazy feminists to make themselves look unthreatening to our mutual oppressors. It hurts to be pawns in those games. It hurts to try and change each day of your life right now—not in talk, not in your head, and not only conveniently out there in the Third World (half of which are women) or the black or brown communities (half of which are women) but in your own home, kitchen, bed. No getting away, no matter how else you are oppressed, from the primary oppression of being female in a patriarchal world. It hurts to hear that the sisters in the Gay Liberation Front, too, have to struggle continuously against the male chauvinism of their gay brothers. It hurts that Jane Alpert was cheered when rapping about imperialism, racism, the Third World, and All Those Safe Topics but hissed and booed by a movement crowd of men who wanted none of it when she began to talk about Women’s Liberation. The backlash is upon us. (¶ 19)

They tell us the alternative is to hang in there and struggle, to confront male domination in the counterleft, to fight beside or behind or beneath our brothers—to show ‘em we’re just as tough, just as revolushunerry, just as whatever‐image‐they‐now‐want‐of‐us‐as‐once‐they‐wanted‐us‐to‐be‐feminine‐and‐keep‐up‐the‐home‐fire‐burning. They will bestow titular leadership on our grateful shoulders, whether it’s being a token woman on the Movement Speakers Bureau Advisory Board, or being a Conspiracy groupie or one of the respectable chain-swinging Motor City Nine. Sisters all, with only one real alternative: to seize our own power into our own hands, all women, separate and together, and make the Revolution the way it must be made—no priorities this time, no suffering group told to wait until after. (¶ 20)

It is the job of revolutionary feminists to build an ever stronger independent Women’s Liberation Movement, so that the sisters in counterleft captivity will have somewhere to turn, to use their power and rage and beauty and coolness in their own behalf for once, on their own terms, on their own issues, in their own style—whatever that may be. Not for us in Women’s Liberation to hassle them and confront them the way their men do, nor to blame them—or ourselves—for what any of us are: an oppressed people, but a people raising our consciousness toward something that is the other side of anger, something bright and smooth and cool, like action unlike anything yet contemplated or carried out. It is for us to survive (something the white male radical has the luxury of never really worrying about, what with all his options), to talk, to plan, to be patient, to welcome new fugitives from the counterfeit Left with no arrogance but only humility and delight, to push—to strike. (¶ 21)

There is something every woman wears around her neck on a thin chain of fear—an amulet of madness. For each of us, there exists somewhere a moment of insult so intense that she will reach up and rip the amulet off, even if the chain tears the flesh of her neck. And the last protection from seeing the truth will be gone. Do you think, tugging furtively every day at the chain and going nicely insane as I am, that I can be concerned with the peurile squabbles of a counterfeit Left that laughs at my pain? Do you think such a concern is noticeable when set alongside the suffering of more than half the human species for the past 5,000 years—due to a whim of the other half? No, no, no, goodbye to all that. (¶ 22)

Women are Something Else. This time, we’re going to kick out all the jams, and the boys will just have to hustle to keep up, or else drop out and openly join the power structure of which they are already the illegitimate sons. Any man who claims he is serious about wanting to divest himself of cock privilege should trip on this: all male leadership out of the Left is the only way; and it’s going to happen, whether through men stepping down or through women seizing the helm. It’s up to the brothers—after all, sexism is their concern, not ours; we’re too busy getting ourselves together to have to deal with their bigotry. So they’ll have to make up their own minds as to whether they will be divested of just cock privilege or—what the hell, why not say it, say it!—divested of cocks. How deep the fear of that loss must be, that it can be suppressed only by the building of empires and the waging of genocidal wars! (¶ 23)

Goodbye, goodbye forever, counterfeit Left, counterleft, male-dominated cracked-glass mirror reflection of the Amerikan Nightmare. Women are the real Left. We are rising, powerful in our unclean bodies; bright glowing mad in our inferior brains; wild hair flying, wild eyes staring, wild voices keening; undaunted by blood we who hemorrhage every twenty-eight days; laughing at our own beauty we who have lost our sense of humor; mourning for all each precious one of us might have been in this one living time-place had she not been born a woman; stuffing fingers into our mouths to stop the screams of fear and hate and pity for men we have loved and love still; tears in our eyes and bitterness in our mouths for children we couldn’t have, or couldn’t not have, or didn’t want, or didn’t want yet, or wanted and had in this place and this time of horror. We are rising with a fury older and potentially greater than any force in history, and this time we will be free or no one will survive. Power to all the people or to none. All the way down, this time. (¶ 24)

Free Kathleen Cleaver!Free Kim Agnew!
Free Anita Hoffman!Free Holly Krassner!
Free Bernardine Dohrn!Free Lois Hart!
Free Donna Malone!Free Alice Embree!
Free Ruth Ann Miller!Free Nancy Kurshan!
Free Leni Sinclar!Free Dinky Forman!
Free Jane Alpert!Free Dinky Forman!
Free Gumbo!Free Sharon Krebs!
Free Bonnie Cohen!Free Iris Luciano!
Free Judy Lampe!Free Robin Morgan!
Free Valerie Solanis!
Free our sisters!Free ourselves!

—Robin Morgan (January 1970)

21 Responses to ““Goodbye to All That,” by Robin Morgan (1970)”

  1. Rad Geek People’s Daily 2005-03-26 – Fathers for Lies: selective quotation and distortion of Catharine MacKinnon’s position Says:

    […] I’m not sure that you quite understood my purpose in writing. I don’t dispute that there are real historical and intellectual connections between radical feminism and Marxism. Anyone who has read the history of the feminist movement knows this; radical feminists make no secret of the fact that substantial parts of their thought come from contemporary Marxist movements and that they themselves were often involved in revolutionary socialist movements (they went on to angrily break with most of these movements, but rarely gave up those movements’ fundamental goals—see for example Robin Morgan’s Goodbye to All That). […]

  2. Rad Geek People’s Daily 2005-11-03 – Goodbye to All That. Again. Says:

    […] — Robin Morgan (1970), Goodbye to All That ¶ 4 […]

  3. Anne Boleyn Bergfield Says:

    I read the email that was forwarded about what Robin had to say…..I spent lots of precious time reading all the crap and how much she was offended until her or someone’s last statement….”I’m not voting for her because she’s a woman, I’m voting for her because I am”.

    That was the stupidest thing to say and reason to vote for HR Clinton. It’s our responsibility to get involved and to vote, but not for the reason that other ignorant women want me to choose that twit. That’s like saying I’m stupid and have no idea what is going on or being said around me and my country, but “I’m a woman so I’ll just vote for another woman”….problem solved.

    I dislike stupid women and I don’t care how smart she thinks she is, it’s not how I think. I’m smarter than that. Maybe she should try flipping a coin. At least she stands a 50/50 chance at getting it right rather than 100 per cent ignorance choice.

  4. Betsey Farquhar Says:

    Even if Hillary was elected it wouldn’t necessarily benefit women. It would first and foremost benefit Hillary. That is her problem. She and her supporters talk me, me, me. Obama talks we, we, we. Hillary is getting her biggest support from women who have been victims while Bill made her a posterchild victim and yet her “strength” is her shrewdness? It doesn’t work, it won’t work. Kucinich bothered to have the votes checked in New Hampshire and I donated to him. He also asked that his supporters vote for Obama. John Conyers who championed the investigation of the stolen election in Ohio supports Obama. Cindy Sheehan supports Obama. If we want votes to count we may take a cue from our most important progressive voices. Obama has a chance of helping ALL of us be seen as PEOPLE, ALL with inherent worth and dignity. I would love it if Obama was the same person and yet a woman but I’ll take him anyway because he is the most right - doesn’t that matter? -Betsey

  5. Doris Parker Says:

    This person seems sick with hate to me. As a woman I do not believe this is the view of most women. Hate and cruelty are in both sexes. Yes, women have been mistreated by some men but this kind of hate that spewes from this piece is not only ugly but harmful to our country as well as teaching a whole generation to hate which just goes on and on. If a woman is in a hateful sistuation she needs to get help and get out of the situation. I hope people do not think most women do not view men and people of other races in the light which she protrays them. If this is published as a way to get women to vote against Hilliary Clinton it will not work. I am not a Hiliary fan but I would not be afraid to vote for her as I feel she is a very carrying person about the American people and our country as a whole. In fact I am watching the votes very carefully and it will be according to who are picked as the vice-president running mates as well as the one that is chosen as the front runner. My vote is not in stone at this point but I felt I must speak up on where this sort of hate is put on the internet. I think more of us “silent” Americans are going to have to speak out and say enough is enough.

  6. Nate Stalheim Says:

    All the way down indeed! The problem with this ideologue is that what she abhors is nothing new, she just puts a new spin on hit; and one that can be very damaging to families at that. She states the fact that this is not a new problem in her essay, but does not state that it is a problem that has been abhorred by men, women, and God since human life began. She puts many names (chauvinism, oppression, sexism) to a simple concept: sin. She pretends that the lust, greed, and pride in men which she so detests is more putrid than that which is equally present in women. She even claims that these terrible attributes are more prevalent in men. Which leads me to question whether she ever paid any attention at all to the way that some women relate to others in school and the workplace. Ironically, the same sins which she so adamantly opposes in men show up time and again within this very essay. She shows a great lust for power, hatred of men in particular and of women that do not support her particular agenda, and pride in women over men. Even more ironically her pride in women and being a woman is the same pride that in men she labels chauvinism. She claims that women get all of the “shitwork,” like raising babies and cooking. As if one form of necessary work were any less important than another. It is this kind of classism that created the caste system in India. The fact of the matter is that sin has the same horrible consequences that it has always had, and pitting men and women against each other in no way helps us to put a stop to that sin. Sin does not so much lie in the institutions we create as in our hearts, and toppling those institutions will not change things because it will not change the heart. If we want a better world for men and women then we will have to begin to value others as much as we do ourselves. Until that happens, no amount of seeking after our own interests—as she espouses—will fix anything.

  7. AmericanPhysician Says:

    Anne, you missed the entire point of the essay. I don’t doubt your intelligence, but rather your frame of mind.

  8. Carolyn Klein Says:

    The article was confusing at best. However, not since Eleanor Roosevelt has there been a women in the white house capable of being president. Both women weathered all kinds of adversity including their husbands infedility and came out strong. Women, for some reason, seem to hold that against Hillary. Some of the same women whose husbands also had illicit affairs. Her bed is her business, not mind or yours. It has not dampered her political struggles to promote womens rights, promoting health care reform for all, eliminating “no child left behind”, a program that is decimating our school system, and to end the war on Iraq. She is a woman, a strong and intelligent woman, and for once we as women have someone we can get behind and feel proud of, but instead, we are like crabs in a barrell. When one climb up we pull it back down. What in the hell is wrong with women!!! Can’t we support the first women to come along in decades that really have a chance to win the nomination. Are we so prejudice ourselves that we just can’t vote for a woman. And to make it easier for ourselves we have come up with the same lame excuses all men Republican and Democrat alike use. Yes, we need change in the while house, but it involves estrogen.

  9. Carolyn Klein Says:

    Goodbye To All Of That!!

  10. Courtney Says:

    Clearly Anne, you did not understand her statement “I’m not voting for her because she’s a woman, I’m voting for her because I am.”

    She is in no way saying she will vote for Clinton because Clinton is a woman. Did you even read the previous paragraph? She is voting for Clinton because: “I support Hillary Rodham because she’s the best qualified of all candidates running in both parties. I support her because her progressive politics are as strong as her proven ability to withstand what will be a massive right-wing assault in the general election. I support her because she knows how to get us out of Iraq. I support her because she’s refreshingly thoughtful, and I’m bloodied from eight years of a jolly “uniter” with ejaculatory politics. I needn’t agree with her on every point. I agree with the 97 percent of her positions that are identical with Obama’s—and the few where hers are both more practical and to the left of his (like health care). I support her because she’s already smashed the first-lady stereotype and made history as a fine senator, because I believe she will continue to make history not only as the first US woman president, but as a great US president.”

    Robin Morgan is a brillant and accomplished writer who has been striving for decades to reach mass audiences with the truth about society and feminism. I personally haven’t decided yet which way I’m going to vote, but I do know sex and race of the candidate I choose will not matter, although of course my personal sex and race will inevitably affect my decision. And Anne, you are the only one here that is ignorant, my dear.

  11. Karen Trommels Says:

    RE: Goodbye to All That (#2) by Robin Morgan

    This is one of the most complete & concise articles of everything my friends & relatives who support HRC that we have read. I don’t care why people vote but I do care that people examine the truth of everything else that I read in this article. I am very grateful to the person who forwarded this to me and will forward it to others as well. Thank you Robin Morgan.

  12. Rad Geek Says:

    N.B.: Many of the commenters on this post are replying, in part, to Robin Morgan’s recent (2 February 2008) essay, “Goodbye To All That (#2)”, a sort of sequel to this (January 1970) essay, in which Morgan explains why she supports Hillary Rodham Clinton for President of the United States, and dissects the sexist and racist tropes that have shown up during the Democratic primary contest between Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama. “Goodbye To All That (#2)” (and a discussion thread) can be found online over at the Women’s Media Center.

  13. Snarfy Says:

    I believe those women who interpret Robin Morgan’s essay “Goodbye To All That” as hate-mongering are those who don’t understand the truth of the female condition since the beginning of recorded human time. I believe them to be women out of touch not only with their gender, but with themselves. The sad thing is that most women ARE out of touch with themselves because it suits men for us to be that way. C’mon - look at the media representations of femininity. Look at Hollywood. Doesn’t it scare any of you that your daughters are growing up with this as their model of perfection? This is a male generated image, and our acceptance of it speaks to the depth of female subjugation and, to my horror, complacency, in this country - even in 2008! How did we ever get to a place, in these “enlightened” times where there even IS an “ideal of beauty” for a woman? What the hell? Where’s the male counterpart? Why is it that men can be homely, balding, paunchy, dress like their grandfathers and be accepted, while women who follow the same trend are ridiculed and ostracized? How brainless IS this country to believe that real women look anything like the images perpetrated by a MALE dominated western society?? Before anyone jumps to point out that Robin’s essay was about so much more than the ideal feminine image in Western Society, let me state emphatically that I already KNOW that.

    Here we are, 38 years later, and our girl children are being taught, through a mercenary and exploitative media,that a size 8 is marginally big and a size 10 is HUGE. They’re being taught that to be anything other than a perfect body with an interchangeable Barbie head is social suicide.

    The other day I heard a co-worker issue the following declaration: “If I EVER get into double-digit sizing, I”ll starve myself - it’s just embarrassing, double digits are so HUGE.” She’s 28, beautiful, and is far too thin. A size 10 would be a GOOD size for her - healthy - but not in our culture. When will women stop allowing themselves to be objectified??? Men aren’t going to stop doing it - it’s up to us to end it.

    I’m off on a rant, so I should probably stop and get back to work - so I will - with one more question: When are women going to wise up? Some of y’all have, but we’ve still got a ways go go.

    Just my two cents.

  14. Web 2.0 Activism Case Studies | activism Says:

    […] In the first issue, Robin Morgan contributed her ground-breaking radical feminist piece “Goodbye to All That,” in which she harshly criticized sexism and […]

  15. Journalism, Joan Didion: Goodbye to "Goodbye to All That" | Nostalgia Says:

    […] it her own, “Goodbye To All That” has been recycled as the titles of (to name but a few): a 1970 essay by Robin Morgan about the women’s movement, Representative Cynthia McKinney’s remarks at a 2002 reception for […]

  16. The Virgin As Spinmaster « Cafe Libre Says:

    […] and husbands.   Daly and other radical feminists at the time challenged women say “Goodbye to All That” .  […]

  17. Investigating the Lesbian Klan: The Rise of Cultural Feminism « Women Born Transsexual Says:

    […] came to describe as “cultural feminism” came in the form of Robin Morgan’s “Good-bye to all that…“ […]

  18. No longer reasonable - the power of angry women | Women's Views on News Says:

    […] Robin Morgan, Goodbye to all that. […]

  19. Oppressed versus “fucked up” | Intellectual Self Defence Says:

    […] Robin Morgan’s “Goodbye to all that” […]

  20. Feminist literature of the 1970s Says:

    […] Robin Morgan (born 1941) is an American child actor and writer. She edited the 1970 anthology Sisterhood is Powerful, which has been widely credited with helping to start the general women’s movement in the US, and was cited by the New York Public Library as “One of the 100 most influential Books of the 20th Century.” It was one of the first widely available anthologies of second-wave feminism. Also in 1970, she wrote Goodbye to All That in reaction to the misogyny of the male-dominated left, in particular a magazine called Rat. The essay gained notoriety in the press for naming sexist liberal men and institutions. It can be read in its entirety here. […]

  21. Obituary: Post-Feminism | Feminist Times Says:

    […] clamour, quickly spreading the message that women’s collective efforts would change the world. ‘Goodbye to All That’, Robyn Morgan declared in 1968, when a group of young women occupied the offices of a radical […]

Leave a Reply