Author: Emma Sajic
MPhil Gender Studies, University of Birmingham, England, UK
January 2001
© Emma Sajic, 2001. All rights reserved.
Patriarchy is from Earth: Feminist Responses to John
Gray
Contents
Liberal Feminist Responses to John
Gray
Radical Feminist Responses to John
Gray
Postmodern Feminist Responses to
John Gray
Introduction
John Gray's book Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus was first published in New York in 1992. In her article "Mars 2, Venus 0", Julia Martin describes how it stayed on the New York Times Best Sellers List for 140 weeks. Elizabeth Gleick, writing for Time magazine, states that according to Harper Collins, Gray's publishers, Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus has sold more than six million copies and has been published in 38 languages. This attests to the book's popularity with an international audience. It has been heavily 'hyped' in the media since its release. According to Virginia Lee, in the US, Gray 'has been garnering lots of attention lately from the mainstream media' as well as making two guest appearances in programmes hosted by the famous talk-show presenter Oprah Winfrey.
Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus has therefore gained a high
public profile, but there has been little work done by academics (in books or
journals) or by the mass media which critiques Gray.(1)
There have been some feminist responses to John Gray but these are mostly
confined to the Internet. A search of the World Wide Web reveals several web
sites which confront John Gray and challenge the content of his best-sellers,
using feminist methodologies and perspectives to do so. In this essay, I will
be examining these feminist responses and unearthing the assumptions upon which
they are predicated. I will show which varieties of feminism are used and where
these types of feminism succeed, and fail, in mounting a challenge to Gray's
theories of gender.
Back to Contents
Liberal Feminist Responses to John Gray
Liberal feminists believe that 'female subordination is rooted in a set of customary and legal constraints blocking women's entrance to and success in the so-called public world' (Tong, 2). The solution to the problem of women's oppression is to remove these constraints and, in so doing, create 'gender justice' for men and women: 'gender justice, insist liberal feminists, requires us, first, to make the rules of the game fair, and second, to make certain none of the runners in the race for society's goods and services is systematically disadvantaged; gender justice does not also require us to give prizes to the losers as well as the winners' (Tong, 2). This means that 'if it should happen that when women and men are given the same educational opportunities and civil rights, few women achieve eminence in the sciences, arts, and professions, then so be it' (Tong, 2). Liberal feminism also espouses individualism, emphasizing the unique nature of each human individual (Trigiani, "Those Martian Women"). Basically this perspective is a reformist rather than a revolutionary one; its supporters think that the issue of female subordination can be adequately addressed by making sure men and women get equal opportunities in the public arena.
Accordingly, liberal feminist responses to John Gray tend to operate on the
assumptions that men and women should not be confined to stereotypical labour
roles but should have an equal chance to participate in the world of work (in
which ever profession they choose) and the task of child-rearing, regardless of
their sex. (By stereotypical labour roles I mean the view that men are expected
to have careers in the public world, in 'masculine' professions such as being a
surgeon, whereas women are mainly restricted to the domestic sphere and
childcare, but allowed in to some 'feminine' professions such as nursing).
Therefore, liberal feminist critiques of his work centre on his use of stereotyped
models of male and female behaviour which promote a blinkered view of women's
(and men's) opportunities and potential.
Back to Contents
Dr. Louanne Cole Weston
Dr. Louanne Cole Weston is against Gray's use of stereotypes because she believes that 'far too many people do not fit these cookie-cutter descriptions'. She also sees Gray's 'labelling' which aims to 'draw people into a category and strive to keep them stuck right there' as denying the uniqueness of the individual:
'I don't agree with urging people to accept the stereotype of men being strong and preferring silence while women chatter on. [. . .] I believe that it is inherently disrespectful to men and women to gloss over each person's unique qualities and deftly dump them into a gender bin. It reinforces the ideas that women can't be astronauts and men can't be day-care workers. It takes the easy way out of life's painful realities. And, because it is the easy way out, it has great appeal.'
Weston urges us to 'strive to be more than just a caricature of our sexes'. The underlying assumption in her argument is that not giving women and men the same opportunities limits their abilities to fulfil their potential as individuals. Gray's claim that women and men can solve all their problems by adopting stereotypical behaviour is not only misguided, it is taking 'the easy way out' and avoiding life's complexities. This implies that Gray's rigid gender categories are oversimplified, and also unrealistic as there will always be people who do not fit into them.
The strengths of Weston's approach lie in the way she exposes John Gray's model of gender as reductive and simplistic. Gray claims that 'at least 90 percent of the more than 25,000 individuals questioned' in his relationship seminars felt that they fitted his gender descriptions (Men are from Mars, 4). Although Gray concedes that 'sometimes in my seminar couples and individuals will share that they relate to the examples of men and women but in an opposite way. The man relates to my descriptions of women and the woman relates to my descriptions of men', he considers this to be caused by men having 'denied some of their masculine attributes' and by women having 'denied some of their feminine attributes' (Men are from Mars, 7). He presents men and women who do not fit his model in a negative light - as being in a minority, as repressing their masculinity or femininity, and being out of balance. His model is restrictive, as it cannot deal constructively with men and women who do not fit its stereotypes, and Weston draws attention to this.
The main weakness in her approach is the fact that she does not provide a
deeper analysis of why John Gray uses stereotypes. She says that sterotyping
'is the easy way out' but does not examine why falling back on sterotyped
gender roles is easier and more appealing than rejecting them. Her analysis
does not explore the political implications behind Gray's work and it cannot
sufficiently account for the origins or motives of his ideas.
Back to Contents
Janine Waclawski
Janine Waclawski's main criticism of Gray is the way that he emphasizes the differences between the sexes instead of what they have in common:
'What I find most offensive is the way this approach polarizes the sexes by putting them on separate planets. Instead of focusing on how we are the same or telling us to build on our shared needs and values, this approach harps on differences. It makes me wonder what [John Gray's] advice would be for people of different ethnicities, nationalities, religions, and party affilations. Do Buddhists, Christians, Hindus, Jews, Muslims, and Shintos all come from different planets too?'
Waclawski implies that such a polarized approach can only be divisive and will not help men and women to understand one another. What is needed is for men and women to 'build on our shared needs and values'. This assumption derives from the liberal feminist idea that equality of the sexes is crucial and that to achieve it, men and women should relate to each other on grounds of similarity ( for example, men and women should be given equal opportunities in society rather than being treated in a way which emphasizes the differences between them ).
The strong point of Waclawski's approach is that she reminds us how stressing the differences between men and women can be harmful, as it can alienate men and women from each other. Her position can be described as 'sameness equality feminist' where she seeks to play down the differences between the sexes in order to argue for equal treatment for women on the grounds of their similarity with men (Evans, 3). Gray's work meets her criticism because it totally denies the similarities between the sexes by alien-ating them - metaphorically placing them on different planets.
Waclawski's position can however be seen as problematic. Her stance is
powerful in a climate where female difference from the male norm is seen as
negative, because it argues away that difference but in doing so it sidesteps
the issue of whether we should treat men as the standard by which women are
judged, and it does not acknowledge the constructive possibilities offered by
women's "difference". Her position implies that equality means
sameness - and therefore that treating the sexes equally means treating them in
the same way. Opposing this view, Judith Evans has argued that 'to treat people
as equals may require that they not be treated in the same way' as men
and women have different needs (4). Sameness feminists do not challenge the way
in which society is set up to cater for male needs, and they want women to have
equal participation in existing social institutions and structures rather than
revolutionising and overturning those institutions. Hence sameness equality
feminists can be seen as implicated in male-dominated society.
Back to Contents
Kristin Anderson
Kristin Anderson's criticisms of Gray are based on the premiss that men and women should have equal opportunities and responsibilities in the domestic sphere as well as the public world. Women should not be confined to the home, but should be able to go out to work if they want to. Domestic chores and childcare should be shared equally by both halves of a heterosexual couple, instead of being the sole responsibility of the woman. Gray's books do not support this vision of equality:
'In Gray's world, women hardly exist outside of the home. And it's better that way because women actually need men to help them from being too autonomous. Gray tells his ABC audience that what Venusians need most from Martians today is assistance to cope with the stress of being so independent and autonomous. Huh? Well, that might be what the women in Gray's mythology need, but the women I know would prefer that men work in partnership with them, or get out of their way so they can maintain their independence and autonomy. We might hope that what Gray meant by women feeling too autonomous was that they still do most of the housework and childcare even when both the husband and wife work. In fact, clinical psychologist Joseph Pleck, back in 1985, found in his research that husbands spent only about two minutes more each day on housework when their wives were employed than when their wives were not employed. But Gray doesn't utilize the empirical research findings that there are dramatic differences in household labor and he certainly doesn't take the issue seriously.' (Anderson)
Anderson's argument here is that women's 'independence and autonomy' is crucial and should be safeguarded. Men should 'work in partnership' with women in order to do this. Gray portrays female autonomy and participation in the world of work as negative (Mars and Venus Together Forever,17-24). Anderson, on the other hand, claims that it is not women's going out to work but the issue of having to 'do most of the housework and the childcare even when both the husband and wife work' (ie. having the domestic responsibilities shared out unequally) which causes women undue stress.
Anderson's strength is that she exposes the backward-looking nature of Gray's ideas. She points out that Gray sees women's going out to work (and hence their economic independence) as negative and threatening, and attacks his view that women cannot cope with their new found autonomy and independence in the world of work. She achieves this by raising practical issues about contemporary women's roles in the workplace and the home which challenge Gray's assumptions.
The main flaw in Anderson's critique is that she provides no analysis of why
Gray is so negative about women going out to work. She does not explore the
wider political, economic or social implications behind Gray's view that the
workplace robs women of their femininity, and that they are less well adapted
to being in it. She provides no explanation for why men refuse to participate
in housework, and she does not analyse the significance of housework as part of
a wider economic system of consumerism and unpaid female labour that oppresses
women. (For such an analysis see Greer, 129-135).
The liberal feminist analyses I have examined here make some valid points
about the surface/superficial gender inequalities in Gray's work but they do
not provide a deep exploration of the underlying political, social and economic
ideologies underpinning Gray's ideas. They do not analyse his work as drawing
from, and part of, a patriarchal ideological and social system which oppresses
women. They can provide no systematic account of why Gray's gender roles are
oppressive other than that these roles do not provide women with the same
opportunities as men. The liberal feminist vision of men and women as equal on
the basis of similarity has been read by some critics as distopian rather than
utopian as Germaine Greer puts it: 'If the future is men and women dwelling
as images of each other in a world unchanged, it is a nightmare.' (Greer, 4)
Back to Contents
Radical Feminist Responses to John Gray
Radical feminism takes sex, gender and reproduction as its focus (Tong, 2). It claims that 'patriarchy is the source of women's oppression' (4). It has a revolutionary agenda, claiming that the legal, political, social and cultural institutions of patriarchy must be destroyed in order to end women's oppression. Radical feminists think that 'the patriarchal system is characterized by power, dominance, hierarchy and competition. It cannot be reformed but only ripped out root and branch' (Tong, 2). There is a great deal of diversity within radical feminism; in order to define radical feminism more effectively, Rosemarie Tong classifies the radical feminist community into two groups: radical-libertarian feminists and radical-cultural feminists (2).
Radical-libertarian feminists believe that 'men should be permitted to explore their masculine dimensions and men their feminine ones' (3). Radical-libertarian feminists think that it is restrictive and detrimental to permit only men to be masculine and only women to be feminine. They believe one important strategy for women's liberation is that each individual should be allowed to be androgynous - that is, to display both masculine and feminine characteristics, regardless of their sex. Radical-libertarian feminists also believe that sexual experimentation by women (autoerotic, heterosexual and homosexual) is crucial to ending women's oppression. Women must 'feel free to follow the lead of [their] own desires' (3).
Radical-cultural feminists, on the other hand, oppose androgyny as a means of achieving women's liberation. Regarding the anti-androgyny issue, they can be split into three camps each with its own distinct stance: the first group believe that society needs to 'learn to value the feminine as much as the masculine' if women's oppression is to end because this problem stems from 'the low value patriarchy assigns to feminine qualities'; the second group believe that 'femininity is the problem because it has been constructed by men for patriarchal purposes' and so, in order to liberate women, 'femininity should no longer be understood as those traits that deviate from masculinity' but should be given new meanings by women; and the third group believe that patriarchy imposes 'a false, or unauthentic, feminine nature upon women' but in order to be liberated, women should discover and get in touch with 'their true, or authentic, female nature' (3). According to radical-cultural feminists, women can only become liberated if they challenge the status quo where 'men have controlled women's sexuality for male pleasure' through activities such as 'pornography, prostitution, sexual harassment, rape, and woman battering, [. . . ] foot binding, suttee, purdah, clitoridectomy, witch burning and gynecology' (3-4). They can only do this through escaping from 'the confines of heterosexuality [to] create an exclusively female sexuality through celibacy, autoeroticism, or lesbianism' (4). Heterosexual women cannot be truly liberated as, in a patriarchal society, their sexuality is inevitably restricted and controlled by men. Women's freedom from (hetero)sexual oppression is therefore seen as a crucial part of women's freedom from patriarchal oppression.
Radical feminist responses to John Gray tend to concentrate on the attitudes
to sexuality revealed in his work. The assumption here is that 'the personal is
political' - that patriarchy is involved in regulating sexuality, and that
sexuality is a political issue. Radical feminists believe that investigating
the power relations involved in sexuality will help us to see how the power
relations of patriarchy operate. They do not see sexuality as something
'natural' and hence outside the realm of politics, but as something 'learnt'
which is mediated by the social, political and economic structures of our
society. Radical feminists therefore read Gray's theories of male and female
sexuality in ways which expose their political implications.
Back to Contents
Kathleen Trigiani
Kathleen Trigiani analyzes Gray's Mars and Venus in the Bedroom using radical feminist ideas, in her article "As Long as Men Like Mr. Mars and Venus Exist...". She describes how she overcame her previous antipathy to radical feminism through reading this particular book of Gray's, and realizing that in it he invalidates women's power of consent to sex:
'In typical self-help book fashion, Gray recounted a case study of James and Lucy, who were having marital problems because of James' guilt over his enjoyment of quickies, or to be more blunt, fucking (MVB:79). Gray the "therapist" negotiated by promising Lucy that in exchange for a quickie, or "fast-food sex", she could have leisurely or "healthy home-cooked sex" once or twice a week, and at least once a month, she could have "gourmet sex". But Lucy remained unconvinced because she couldn't "respond" to quickies. So James told her: "If you are OK with occasional quickies, I promise never to expect you to respond. It will just be your gift to me. I don't expect you to get anything out of it. You can lie there like a dead log!" (MVB:79) [. . . ] When I read the "dead log" remark, I thought, "Is this what Kitty MacKinnon means by women not having real sexual choices in a patriarchy?" I mean, Lucy's consent was totally meaningless. Her husband, James, didn't even expect her to enjoy it. [. . . ] In Gray's anatomy there is no choice. Men need intercourse. Period. Women, in turn, must submit when confronted with a set of false options: to participate enthusiastically, to participate passively ("you can just lie there like a dead log"), or to say no and get blamed for the end of the relationship. [. . . ] Mars and Venus in the Bedroom, of all things, was turning me at some level into a radical feminist. I mean, here was this charlatan making mincemeat of women's consent to sexual intercourse and none of our family values guardians were making him account for it.'
Trigiani's argument here is based on the radical-cultural feminist assumption that in a patriarchy, men control women's sexuality for men's enjoyment. Under patriarchy, male sexual pleasure is seen as primary and crucial, whereas female sexual pleasure is seen as secondary, unimportant and unnecessary. This can be seen in Gray's case study where Lucy is not expected to enjoy "quickie" sex - it is designed to give her husband speedy sexual gratification, which is seen as more important than Lucy's enjoyment of sex. Gray's recommendations to the couple privilege the man's (James's) sexual needs above the woman's (Lucy's).
Trigani claims that Gray's book undermines 'women's consent'; underlying this claim is the radical feminist concept that women should have the right to say no to sex and that men should respect that right; if a man refuses to respect a woman's right to consent and has sex with her when she has told him she doesn't want to have sex, it is classed as rape and is a violation of the woman's body. According to Gray, however, the woman has a duty to have sex with her husband whether she wants to or not; if she fails in this duty then she is blamed for the breakdown of the relationship. This is a clear example of sexual coercion. Gray thinks that it is damaging to a couple's relationship, and even selfish, for women to say no to sex: 'What if I'm just too tired, too busy from the kids and household chores, or work? That's all excuses. It takes two minutes. That's all complete baloney, and that attitude ruins marriages' (Gray, "Married Women: What if my husband wants sex and I don't?"). If, as Trigiani argues, women are not given the choice to say no to sex, then the whole concept of consent is invalidated and the boundaries between sex and rape become dangerously blurred: 'One can only wonder how "Dr" Gray would define rape - or whether he thinks it really exists. Lucy's coercive experience was viewed as a gift to James!'. Women's bodies become mere objects, vessels for men's sexual gratification. The radical feminist idea underlying this is that in a patriarchal society, sex becomes an arena for the expression of male dominance over women, mirroring the power relations between men and women in that society as a whole.
Trigiani's approach stems from her belief that women should assert that they 'have conjugal and relational rights as well as legal and political rights', and that the two sets of rights are interconnected: 'the personal is political'. The strength of Trigiani's analysis lies in her unearthing of how, in Gray's work, women's consent to sex is a farce because women are expected to be in 'complete submission to men's demands'. Gray's book Mars and Venus in the Bedroom may ostensibly seem to be advocating ways to improve your sexual relationships but beneath the glossy covers is a thinly-disguised promotion of what Trigiani calls 'The Gray Area (pun intended!) between rape and consensual intercourse' - total male dominance and total female submission, with female enjoyment of sex seen as incidental. Radical feminism is highly effective in critiquing Gray's writing, as it shows how, in attempting to explain why women are oppressed, an examination of power relations in the bedroom is just as significant as an analysis of power relations in the public arena. The women in Gray's gender model are oppressed in the bedroom just as much as they are oppressed in the public world.
The weaknesses in Trigiani's approach lie in the fact that her analysis does not draw out the political aspects of Gray's views on sexuality as effectively as it could do. Trigiani claims that 'the personal is political' as a justification for her analysis of sexuality in Gray's work - but she does not really bring out the wider political implications of Gray's advice about sex. She does not show the connections between how Gray's views on sex oppress women in the bedroom, and how they oppress women in a more general, political sense. To make her argument more forceful she could have shown how Gray's recommendations for male dominance and total female submission to male demands in the bedroom form part of a 'backlash' conservative gender politics which aims to place the male in a position of complete dominance over the female in the workplace and the home.
Trigiani also fails to mention or analyse Gray's heterosexism, which is something that radical feminists would be expected to notice. Gray's books refer only to heterosexual relationships and there is no mention of homosexuality. Introducing homosexual couples into consideration exposes how dependent Gray's ideas are on the two members of a couple being of different sexes and playing inflexible gender roles. If all men are expected to behave in the same predictable masculine way ie. as "Martians", and all women are expected to behave in an opposite manner to men, which is defined as feminine - ie. as "Venusians", then what are the dynamics of homosexual relationships? As Louanne Cole Weston puts it, 'the Mars/Venus system makes light of the painful reality that people don't always find it comfortable to stay in close personal relationships. If the problems of relating were based upon being a Martian or a Venusian, what explanation can be given for same-sex couples who don't get along? I'll wager it'll be a long while before we see a book titled "Mars and Mars in Bed"'. If we apply Gray's gender theories to homosexuality we see their flaws, as they seem to state (by implication and omission) that both partners in a homosexual couple will understand each other without any communication problems, as communication problems arise from the different sexes being "from different planets". However, in real life it is rare for any relationship (whether heterosexual or homosexual) to be completely unproblematic, and, in actual fact, in many same-sex relationships, perfect mutual understanding does not materialize. Gray's model can provide no explanation for this.
Another potential flaw in Trigiani's analysis is that she provides no analysis of the economic implications of Gray's views on sex. Admittedly this is something that would be expected from a Marxist or socialist feminist analysis rather than a radical feminist one. By 'economic implications' I mean the politics of financial (in)dependence. Gray nostalgically advocates a situation where women as financially dependent (on men) while men are seen as the breadwinners or 'sole providers' (Mars and Venus Together Forever, 19). This can place women in the position where their partner expects them to provide sex because he is providing them with a financial income by going out to work - in a way they are "paying for their keep" with sexual favours, as Anne Dickson describes in The Mirror Within:
'Although many women would be utterly shocked if they were associated with prostitution, most of us have at some time exchanged sexual favours not for money, perhaps, but for something. We may have agreed to sex in anticipation of approval, promotion, affection, a quiet life, new living-room curtains or having the bathroom tap fixed. We also "give" sex in return for financial security or to show appreciation for a meal or being sympathetically treated, in return for advice and for company or friendship. It can be difficult to resist the pressure of believing that we owe it because of the assumption that sex always has a price' (24)
John Gray even states explicitly in an interview with Yahoo! Internet
Life that women owe men sex in return for men being the breadwinners: 'The
man goes out and risks his life for this woman. The man works hard for his
family. What does she do for him? She has sex for him whenever he wants. That's
what sex was. Sex was always for the man. What's this sex for the woman thing?'
("Married Men: Does one spouse owe the other sex?"). A Marxist or
socialist feminist would argue, as Anne Dickson does, that this is a form of
prostitution. A lack of financial independence linked to a lack of sexual
independence in the way I have outlined above, contributes significantly to
women's oppression. As Germaine Greer reminds us, 'a person working as a
prostitute to fund a drug habit is the least free individual on the planet'
(6). Marxist and socialist feminists would claim that a woman who submits to
sex for economic reasons, whether explicit (as in prostitution) or implicit (as
in wives 'owing' husbands sex) has also been significantly deprived of her
freedom, independence and autonomy.
Back to Contents
Postmodern Feminist Responses to John Gray
Postmodern feminists aim to be 'writers offering women the most fundamental liberation of all: freedom from oppressive thought' (Tong, 199). By 'oppressive thought' they mean 'phallogocentric thought, ideas ordered around an absolute word (logos) that is "male" in style (hence the reference to the phallus)' (Tong,193). Phallogocentric thought 'manifests itself in Western discourse not only in its vocabulary and syntax, but also in its rigorous rules of logic, its proclivity for fixed classifications and oppositions, and its criteria for what we take to be valid evidence and objective knowledge' (Abrams, 238). Another characteristic of phallogocentric thought is its 'dualism, the expression of everything in terms of binary oppositions' (Tong, 198). As Jean Curthoys explains, 'a dualism, binary opposition, or dichotomy is a purely logical relation which can hold between a pair of terms, the relation consisting in the fact that the terms are both exhaustive and exclusive of the relevant domain. That is, everything under consideration is described by either one or the other of the terms but not both' (72). Common examples of binary oppositions are 'good/evil, inside/outside, private/public, nature/culture, body/soul, positive/negative, objective/subjective' (Ward, 99) and man/woman.
Some postmodern feminists use deconstruction in order to subvert these binary oppositions and highlight this limiting form of thought: 'The consequences of deconstruction for feminism are particularly appealing. Deconstruction attacks hierarchies of value and single "truths" and hence supports feminism's claims that some forms of knowledge, some claims of objective truth about gender identity, can be overturned. Feminist critics use deconstruction in order to subvert patriarchal discourses and knowledge claims' (Humm, 108-9) Deconstruction achieves this subversion by 'addressing a dualism, such as "nature-culture", "female-male". The technique [of deconstruction], it is said, disrupts the very terms of the dualism; and in the case of equality-difference, of the surrounding debate. It exposes the dualisms of our culture - man-woman, culture-nature - as no mere binary forms. For they are, it is argued, implicated with one another; and - for Derrida, at least - they are hierarchical. Their relationship of interdependence is also one of inequality: for example, woman is dominated by man. Exposing this, it is said, we subvert it' (Evans, 127). Binary oppositions are read as political in postmodern feminist thought because it claims that in Western culture 'one half of the [binary] distinction is always seen as inferior to, derivative of, less than, disruptive of or expressive of the other half, which in this process gets privileged as the pure, primary presence. There is always a bias towards one term over the other, and this becomes the assumed grounds for argument, interpretation and proof' (Ward, 99).
Postmodern feminism has a great concern with multiplicity, pluralism and diversity and it wishes 'to preserve diversity at all costs' (Ward, 180). Postmodern feminists refuse to develop a unifed, 'overarching explanation and solution for women's oppression' as they view as highly suspect 'any mode of feminist thought that aims to provide the explanation for why woman is oppressed or the ten steps all women must take to achieve liberation' (Tong, 193).
Postmodern feminism also has 'anti-essentialist or constructionist views of identity [. . . ] Anti-essentialism has been a hotly debated topic within recent feminist work, where it has often seemed necessary to stress the idea of gender as cultural and not a natural or essential category. Given that attempts are sometimes made to define women's "proper" place in terms of what is supposedly natural it has become important to dispute the way society habitually calls upon an idea of "nature" as the ultimate explanation of things which happen within culture' (Ward, 123-4).
Like Simone de Beauvoir, postmodern feminists see woman as man's Other, but
'postmodern feminists take de Beauvoir's understanding of otherness and turn it
on its head. Woman is still the other, but rather than interpreting this
condition as something to be transcended, postmodern feminists proclaim its
advantages. The condition of otherness enables women to stand back and
criticize the norms, values and practices that the dominant culture
(patriarchy) seeks to impose on everyone, including those who live on its
periphery, in this case, women. Thus, otherness, for all of its associations
with oppression and inferiority, is much more than an oppressed, inferior
condition. It is also a way of being, thinking and speaking allowing for
openness, plurality, diversity and difference' (Tong, 195).
Back to Contents
Susan Hamson
Susan Hamson's website The Rebuttal from Uranus is devoted to a postmodern feminist critique of John Gray's ideas. The pages in the section "The View from My Well" analyse Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus in detail, chapter by chapter. Hamson's main emphasis is on Gray's language, and his use of binary oppositions which portray women negatively as inferior to men. Hamson works on the anti-essentialist assumption that "feminine" behaviours are not inherently "natural" to women but are something socially constructed and artificial. She challenges the association that Gray makes between "feminine" behaviour and womanhood: 'I know many women who feel the same way and approach their personal and professional lives with the same gusto Gray accords men. Should we be concerned, then, about our womanhood?' ("The View from My Well: II"). Her premiss here is that a woman who does not behave in a "feminine" way has not lost her womanhood and is not invalidated as a woman.
Hamson's basic supposition is that the way Gray uses language, and his choice of words, play a centre-stage role in making his texts so oppressive. Male domination over women is not only recommended but actually enacted in his texts, by the privileging of terms which are associated with men and masculinity, and the denigration of terms connected with women and femininity. For instance, Gray says that women need men to validate their feelings; Hamson deconstructs this use of "validate" to show that what Gray is implying is 'women need a man to tell them their concerns are valid' and points out that 'Gray can't use the word "acknowledge" [instead of "validate"] because that would put men and women on an equal playing field. A playing field where equally powerful human beings are making a mature and honest effort to understand the other's point of view without the need to validate or be validated. But, you see, that's not gender-specific. That approach does't fit into the paradigm that Gray has heretofore established for women: passive, powerless, and rambling shrieking harpies who need the approval of a man before having a successful relationship' ("The View from My Well: IX").
Hélène Cixous, a postmodern feminist, has written that 'traditionally the question of sexual difference is treated by coupling it with the opposites: activity/passivity. [. . . ] Either woman is passive or she does not exist' (579). Hamson shows how this is the case in Gray's treatment of the issue. At the core of Gray's work, claims Hamson, lies the thesis that 'men fulfil active roles and are seen as ambitious and powerful. Women, however, satisfy passive roles and, although the author [Gray] may grudgingly admit that women are cognizant human beings, they must necessarily take a back seat to the dominant male in their lives in order to routinely accommodate his wants and desires' ("The View from My Well: I").
Hamson uses a deconstructive close reading of the dualisms in Gray's text in order to show how it is founded on what she calls the 'Active-Passive control mechanism' where the binary opposition man-woman is associated with the binary opposition active-passive in a way that is oppressive to women. Throughout the "The View from My Well"pages Hamson presents a lot of evidence in the form of detailed examination of quotations from Gray, to support her case that men are represented as active and women are represented as passive in Gray's model. An example of this type of analysis is her statement that:
'By further elaborating on that active/passive control mechanism that is the foundation of his book, Gray tells us that stress makes "men [. . . ] increasingly focused and withdraw while women become increasingly overwhelmed and emotionally involved." (20) Notice that by focusing on his problems a man takes a pro-active stance. Women adopt a passive response by becoming overwhelmed. The implication here, of course, is that men can deal with problems and women cannot.' ("The View from My Well: III")
Hamson's critique highlights the way that Gray associates woman with the inferior term of many binary pairs, and associates the man with the superior term of the binary. For example, with the binaries reason/madness and logic/emotion, Hamson shows how Gray connects men with logic and reason and women with emotion, illogicality, madness and irrationality:
' "It is a mistake to expect a man to always be in touch with his loving feelings at it is a mistake to expect a woman's feelings to always be rational and logical." So what is Gray telling us? Again, when the man [John Gray] is silent it speaks volumes! It is the man who [is] always rational and logical. Men always make complete sense. They may not be loving at all times, but they always make sense. And women? Well, these two sentences infer that women are hysterical, rambling, illogical half-wits who can sometimes be rational and logical. Now are women supposed to be loving and responsible while being irrational and not making sense?' ("The View from My Well: III")
The postmodern view that language does not reflect reality, but creates it, underlies Hamson's analysis of Gray's advice on communication:
'Gray insists that women refrain from "giving any advice or criticism" while men should "practice listening whenever a woman speaks." (28) It appears obvious to me that women are doing the real bulk of the work here. They must bite their tongues, even if they know they are right. Their needs are secondary to his. Men have little more to do than close their eyes and relax. And the rewards? Women get the active response of their mate being "attentive and responsive", while men revel in their mate's passive appreciation. What this all boils down to is one obvious and very disturbing world control.' ("The View from my Well II")
If women's speech is silenced then their version of reality is being excluded from consideration. Silent, passive women are abdicating their power. Gray advocates female passivity and muteness - this allows the male to take over 'world control' and excludes women's needs and desires from being communicated. Male / female communication (i.e. language) in Gray's world therefore constructs a reality where male needs are always catered for and female needs are denied and suppressed.
Hamson also uses the postmodern technique of focussing on the contradictions, inconsistencies and paradoxes in Gray's text - the moments where the text deconstructs itself:
'As far as women are concerned, John Gray informs us that in order "to fully express their feelings, women assume poetic license to use various superlatives, metaphors, and generalizations." (60) (Odd, that sounds a lot like this male-authored book, doesn't it?) Men, we are told, take these exaggerated statements literally and therein lies the cause of conflict in communication between men and women.' ("The View from My Well: V")
Gray claims that women's language is metaphorical whereas men's is literal and logical. However, his own text contradicts this as its fundamental basis is the "alien species" metaphor that men are from the planet Mars and women are from the planet Venus! If we accept Gray's claim about men's language, his text falls into the paradox of how a book written by a man can be based on a series of metaphors and claim simultaneously that men do not use metaphors. This contradiction is not resolved in the text.
Hamson sees Gray's theories as retrogressive and conservative. His ideas implicitly make a case against social change while on the surface seeming to advocate the need for 'new secrets for creating loving and lasting relationships' (Men are from Mars, 13). His work contains an undercurrent of anxiety about, and fear of, the multiplicity, plurality, uncertainty, unpredictability and diversity celebrated by postmodern feminists:
'I contend that in a new age of uncertainty - where definitions of gender are themselves undergoing a change (much as they have throughout history) - putting men and women into pigeonholes makes things a hell of a lot easier in the long run. In Gray's universe, men and women fit nicely prescribed roles and are therefore predictable. [. . . ] Gray advocates a patriarchal social system that as such holds one group in dominance over the other. It's easier that way. If men and women just accepted the way they should be, we would all get along quite well [. . . ] Where is the line drawn? Is this magazine [Gray's Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus: The Magazine] reflecting society, or prescribing patterns of behaviour so that society is less disrupted by inevitable social evolution?' ("The View from My Well: MMWV: The Magazine")
The major strength of Hamson's critique is the way she uses close reading of Gray's texts to deconstruct and bring to light the oppressive and self-contradictory nature of their ideas at the level of language. If, as postmodern feminists believe, language constructs reality then the type of language Gray uses is crucial as it determines the type of reality he envisages and hopes to create. Gray's choice of language and binary pairings which relegate women and attributes seen as "feminine" to second place can therefore only create a reality where women are seen as second class citizens.
There are problems involved in using postmodern feminist ideas to analyze Gray's work, however. By focussing so much on language, Hamson can be said to overlook the ways that Gray's text relates to women's oppression in the world outside the text. Postmodern feminism has been criticized for not being conducive to political activism because of its extremely abstract nature and its focus on theorizing about language:
'Postmodernism speaks of "texts". This stems from its
literary-philosophical connections and its pressure towards the literary and
imaginative, and relates to its interpretive strategy: we "read the
world" as though it were a text. A major critique of postmodernism,
related to this, has been that there is within it no room for the real world,
that "the text" is indeed all we (are allowed to) have.' (Evans, 126)
Back to Contents
Jonathan Winkler
Winkler states that self-help books reduce relationships 'to power systems where most problems: (a) have precisely defined remedies, and (b) inequities in the constructed "power balance" can be corrected by applying carefully chosen remedies and in so doing, pulling the levers of power' ("The Machiavelli Project"). In his critique of Gray's self-help books he aims to 'expose the mechanistic nature of these power constructs and in so doing, show that they are reliant upon patriarchal interpretations of gender which tend to empower men, by putting the discourse of relationships in their terms, rather than women since they fail to allow and account for the ambiguity and subversive multiplicity (of motive and emotion) which are traditionally associated with the feminine and which are present in real relationships' ("The Machiavelli Project"). The assumptions underlying this aim are postmodern feminist ones: that relationships are a form of discourse or text which can be interpreted or manipulated, and that the patriarchal interpretation of the discourse of relationships and gender favours men and masculinity while suppressing (and oppressing) women and femininity.
Winkler's main criticism of Gray is the fact that Gray's works are 'irrevocably wedded to the gender binary' ("Dr. John Gray"). By this Winkler means 'wholehearted subscription to the "gender difference" concept: the stereotypical assumption that there are certain attributes of emotion or personality which are either male or female [. . . ]' ("The Machiavelli Project") Where gender is concerned, there is little scope for flexibility in Gray's books - if you do not behave like the standard "Martian" man or "Venusian" woman John Gray describes, then Gray claims that you are out of balance and there is something wrong with you.
Winkler also believes that Gray's strategies for fixing relationship problems follow a linear, phallogocentric pattern:
'[Gray's] reduction of the complex philosophical issues implicated in questions of gender difference (which are discussed in Butler's Gender Trouble) to the level of blonde and "men are dumb" jokes is detestable. It is also insidious because it permits him to convey insights into how relationships work as procedures for somehow "repairing" or "fixing" difficulties - linear algorithms - which applied on their own tend to demutualize relationships by giving one partner a way to manipulate the other. The linear, progressive character of these algorithms is one symptom of their phallogocentric origin [. . . ]' ("Dr. John Gray")
The postmodern feminist concept being applied here is that Gray's works are dominated by phallogocentric thought which values linearity. The step-by-step case studies and recommendations in Gray's books are read here as following a linear, logical pattern, privileging the "masculine" qualities of logic, linearity, unity, reason and coherence. Gray's narrative moves in a straight line from identifying a problem to providing its solution.
The strength of Winkler's approach is that he draws our attention to the way the feminine is suppressed in Gray's work - not just in the overt content of the ideas in the text but in the actual structure and form of the text. The text is written in a linear form avoiding "feminine" multiplicity and ambiguity, and contains 'linear algorithms' which move in a contained, direct fashion from problem to solution.
Winkler's analysis has some weaknesses. There is a lack of detailed close
reading of Gray's text (this is a problem because deconstructive close reading,
paying particular attention to the language a text uses, is an important tool
in postmodern feminist analyses ). Winkler fails to analyse 'the discourse of
relationships' that he mentions. He does not explain how this discourse is
constituted or how it can be interpreted to empower men and disempower women,
for example. There is also no examination of the social context of Gray's work
or its implications in the "outside world". Winkler's criticism of gender
stereotypes uses the jargon of postmodernism but his argument on this issue is
strikingly reminiscent of liberal feminism. He does not explore how the
supposition that Gray's theory is 'wedded to the gender binary' contributes to
the oppressiveness of Gray's text. It could also be pointed out that Winkler
criticises Gray's 'phallogocentric' and 'linear' masculine style of discourse
in an essay which itself is written in masculine discourse!
The postmodern feminist readings I have examined here are very useful for
analysing the misogyny of Gray's texts on the level of language and form.
However, they are less successful when it comes to relating the texts to wider
social issues.
Back to Contents
Conclusion
To date, feminist responses to John Gray's work have tended to use the following perspectives: liberal feminism, radical feminism, and postmodern feminism. I found no analyses which used Marxist/socialist feminism, psychoanalytical feminism, ecofeminism or global/multicultural feminism to critique Gray. This does not mean that these brands of feminism would not produce effective analyses of his work. For example, there is a lot of scope for a socialist feminist analysis of his views on women's experience of the workplace as negative, and on women owing sexual favours to their male partners in exchange for the males being the breadwinners.
The strength of the critiques I have discussed in this essay lies in their unearthing (through different techniques) of the various ways Gray's texts can be considered oppressive and harmful to women. Each feminist perspective focuses on different aspects of the texts to find unique angles on why and how Gray's work contributes to women's oppression. In general I feel that the biggest flaw of the critiques was their lack of detailed, far-reaching analysis. None of the pieces have been published in academic journals and the quality of their analysis was often not as high as would be expected from an academic journal article.
No one feminist reading gives the complete, definitive answer on why Gray's texts are oppressive but we should not expect this. However, when several different feminist readings are examined together, as in this essay, we begin to get a sense of a powerful multi-faceted critique emerging.
I feel that academics should begin to investigate Gray's texts as his work
is a high-profile part of popular culture, especially in the United States, and
has reached many readers. His influence should not be disregarded. Feminist
critics must aim to provide an alternative to Gray's ideas and show the
patriarchal thinking behind his work, if the planets of Mars and Venus are not
to become symbols of a new backlash against women's independence and freedom.
Back to Contents
Works Cited
Abrams, M. H. A Glossary of Literary Terms. 6th edn. Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace, 1993.
Anderson, Kristin. "Pop-Psychology as Science and Infomercial as Journalism: ABC News Sponsors John Gray's Interplanetary Sexism". The Rebuttal from Uranus. Accessed 28/12/00.<http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/women_rebuttal_from_uranus/sojourn.htm>.
Cixous, Hélène. "Sorties." Literary Theory: An Anthology. Ed. Julie Rivkin and Michael Ryan. Oxford: Blackwell, 1998. 578-584.
Curthoys, Jean. Feminist Amnesia: The Wake of Women's Liberation. London and New York: Routledge, 1997.
Dickson, Anne. The Mirror Within: A New Look at Sexuality. London: Quartet Books, 1985.
Evans, Judith. Feminist Theory Today: An Introduction to Second-Wave Feminism. London: Sage Publications, 1995.
Gleick, Elizabeth. "Tower of Psychobabble". Time 149.24 (June 16,1997). Accessed 11/12/00. <http://www.time.com/time/magazine/1997/dom/970616/ ashow.tower_of_psych.html>
Gray, John. "Married Men: Does one spouse owe the other sex?". December 1996. Yahoo! Internet Life. Accessed 28/12/00. <http://www.zdnet.com/yil/content/mag/9612/gray/grayans5mm.html>
Gray, John. "Married Men: Shouldn't I try to fulfil my wife's needs?". December 1996. Yahoo! Internet Life. Accessed 28/12/00. <http://www.zdnet.com/yil/content/mag/9612/gray/grayans8mm.html>
Gray, John. "Married Women: What if my husband wants sex and I don't?". December 1996. Yahoo! Internet Life. Accessed 28/12/00. <http://www.zdnet.com/yil/content/mag/9612/gray/grayans2mw.html>
Gray, John. Mars and Venus Together Forever: Relationship Skills for Lasting Love. London: Vermilion, 1996.
Gray, John. Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus: A Practical Guide for Improving Communication and Getting What You Want in Your Relationships. London: Thorsons, 1993.
Greer, Germaine. The Whole Woman. London: Doubleday, 1999.
Hamson, Susan. "John Gray's Interview in Yahoo! Internet Life". 21 November 1996. The Rebuttal from Uranus. Accessed 28/12/00. <http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/ women_rebuttal_from_uranus/spchless.htm>
Hamson, Susan. "Ph.D.? Where Did John Gray Get His Ph.D.?". 1996-1999. The Rebuttal from Uranus. Accessed 12/11/00. <http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/ women_rebuttal_from_uranus/school.htm>
Hamson, Susan. "The View from My Well: I". 14 February 1996. The Rebuttal from Uranus. Accessed 12/11/00. <http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/ women_rebuttal_from_uranus/well.htm>
Hamson, Susan. "The View from My Well: II". 1 March 1996. The Rebuttal from Uranus. Accessed 12/11/00. <http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/ women_rebuttal_from_uranus/well2.htm>
Hamson, Susan. "The View from My Well: III". 16 March 1996. The Rebuttal from Uranus. Accessed 12/11/00. <http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/ women_rebuttal_from_uranus/well3.htm>
Hamson, Susan. "The View from My Well: IV". 25 May 1996. The Rebuttal from Uranus. Accessed 12/11/00. <http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/ women_rebuttal_from_uranus/well4.htm>
Hamson, Susan. "The View from My Well: V". 6 August 1996. The Rebuttal from Uranus. Accessed 12/11/00. <http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/ women_rebuttal_from_uranus/well5.htm>
Hamson, Susan. "The View from My Well: VI". 21 June 1997. The Rebuttal from Uranus. Accessed 12/11/00. <http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/ women_rebuttal_from_uranus/well6.htm>
Hamson, Susan. "The View from My Well: VII". 7 July 1997. The Rebuttal from Uranus. Accessed 12/11/00. <http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/ women_rebuttal_from_uranus/well7.htm>
Hamson, Susan. "The View from My Well: VIII". 20 October 1997. The Rebuttal from Uranus. Accessed 12/11/00. <http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/ women_rebuttal_from_uranus/well8.htm>
Hamson, Susan. "The View from My Well: IX". 21 June 1997. The Rebuttal from Uranus. Accessed 12/11/00. <http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/ women_rebuttal_from_uranus/well9.htm>
Hamson, Susan. "The View from My Well: MMWV: The Magazine". 21 June 1997. The Rebuttal from Uranus. Accessed 12/11/00. <http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/ women_rebuttal_from_uranus/wellmag.htm>
Hamson, Susan. "The Yahoo! Interview: Some Comments and a Few Lingering Questions". 30 December 1996. The Rebuttal from Uranus. Accessed 28/12/00. <http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/women_rebuttal_from_uranus/query.htm>
Humm, Maggie. Practising Feminist Criticism: An Introduction. Hemel Hempstead: Prentice Hall/Harvester Wheatsheaf, 1995.
Lee, Virginia. "Different as Mars and Venus: A Conversation with John Gray". Common Ground. Accessed 11/12/00. <http://www.comngrnd.com/gray.html>.
Living By the Book. Episode 2. Channel 4. 17 Jan. 2001.
Martin, Julia. "Mars 2, Venus 0: Exploring Self Help Books". Altitude. Accessed 11/12/00. <http://www.adelaide.edu.au/English/ALTITUDE/mart.htm>.
Trigiani, Kathleen. "Endnotes for 'Those Martian Women!'". November 1999. Out Of the Cave: Exploring Gray's Anatomy. Accessed 11/12/00. <http://web2.airmail.net/ ktrig246/out_of_cave/martian_notes.html>
Trigiani, Kathleen. "Those Martian Women!". November 1999. Out Of the Cave: Exploring Gray's Anatomy. Accessed 11/12/00. <http://web2.airmail.net/ ktrig246/out_of_cave/martian.html>
Tong, Rosemarie Putnam. Feminist Thought: A More Comprehensive Introduction. 2nd edn. Oxford and Colorado: Westview Press, 1998
Waclawski, Janine. "The Real World: Psychologists on Celluloid and Pulp Fiction 'Shrinks'". TIP 36.2 (October 1998). Accessed 11/12/00. <http://siop.org/TIP/backissues/tipoct98/9Waclawski.htm>
Ward, Glenn. Postmodernism. Teach Yourself Books. London: Hodder Headline, 1997.
Weston, Dr. Louanne Cole. "Venus-Mars Labels Limit Relationships". 03/09/1998. OnHealth. Accessed 11/12/00. <http://ww1.onhealth.com/lifestyle/columnist/item,14749.asp>.
Winkler, Jonathan N. "Dr. John Gray". 1998. The Machiavelli Project. Accessed 11/12/00. <http://www.phys.ksu.edu/~winkler/machiavelli-self-help/gray.html>
Winkler, Jonathan N. "The Machiavelli Project". 1998. The Machiavelli Project. Accessed 11/12/00. <http://www.phys.ksu.edu/~winkler/machiavelli-self-help/machiav.html>
Back to Contents
Notes
1. A recent Channel 4 programme on Men are From Mars, Women are from Venus centred around two white, middle-aged couples who were having problems in their relationships (Living By the Book). The couples were given copies of Gray's book and told to implement its suggestions for one month. Gray participated in the programme as a source of authority the "relationship expert" who could explain why the couples were not communicating well. The programme was uncritical of Gray's authority and did not challenge his claims. His ideas were not debated or subjected to criticism. Also, he was referred to as "John Gray, Ph.D." although his Ph.D. is highly suspect as it was obtained at an unaccredited distance-learning university (see Hamson, "Ph.D.? Where Did John Gray Get His Ph.D.?" for more details). The more misogynistic elements of Gray's work were selectively excluded in the TV programme. The impression which the programme gave of his theories was generally far more sanitised than the image which arises from the critiques I discuss in this essay.
Back to Contents
Author: Emma Sajic
MPhil Gender Studies, University of Birmingham, England, UK
January 2001
© Emma Sajic, 2001. All rights reserved.