What do you think?
Rate this book
No More Nice Girls: Countercultural Essays
With characteristic intelligence, wit, and feminist insight, Ellen Willis addresses democracy as she sees “a commitment to individual freedom and egalitarian self-government in every area of social, economic, and cultural life.” Moving between scholarly and down-to-earth activist writing styles, Willis confronts the conservative backlash that has slowly eroded democratic ideals and advances of the 1960s as well as the internal debates that have frequently splintered the left.
282 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1992
About the author
Ellen Willis
25 books63 followersEllen Jane Willis was an American left-wing political essayist, journalist, and pop music critic.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 11 of 11 reviews
December 22, 2012
This is a collection of well-written and insightful essays, mostly on identity politics and feminism/sex radicalism. My favorite quote from the book is: "Western advocates of a post-modern politics are reacting to a hegemonic Marxism turned instrument of domination. Insisting on a variety of voices, a multiplicity of movements, and the decentralized guerilla tactics of deconstructive critique is a logical and healthy response. Yet it's not enough. Ideally, there should be a creative tension between building models of totality and tearing them down. Or, as two of our great systemic thinkers called it, a dialectic."
July 22, 2012
It's been a long time since I've read anything this garbled or confused.
On the one hand, Willis admits that patriarchy is institutional and systematic (not random or idiosyncratic in the lives of some individual women) - for instance, she admits that liberal feminism is nonsensical. But at the same time, she frequently talks about abstract systems and refuses to name the agent (i.e. men) of women's oppression. She talks about abstract systems and institutions, conveniently ignoring who controls/maintains/benefits from those institutions (men). She waxes sentimental about how patriarchy and standard gender roles are oppressive to men and hurt their feelings, but refuses to consider the fact men nevertheless choose to maintain the status quo because it benefits them materially and sexually. For someone who is ostensibly concerned about men and their humanity, Willis refuses to consider that her morally infantilizing men and cloaking them from taking responsibility for their actions is actually harming them a million times more than any radical feminist critique of (the current paradigm of) male sexuality.
Most laughably of all, she dismisses radical feminist discourse as "Neo-Victorian", as though prudishness and Puritanical sexual repression are the only reasons any woman could possibly have for abhoring rape and pornography. It is these sorts of reductiones ad absurdum, couple with breath-taking confusion about power and gender under patriarchy, that make it borderline impossible to take her seriously. If the sexploitation-positive crowd wants to engage in substantive debate and argumentation with radical feminists, abstaining from absurd charicatures of our views would be a great place to start.
On the one hand, Willis admits that patriarchy is institutional and systematic (not random or idiosyncratic in the lives of some individual women) - for instance, she admits that liberal feminism is nonsensical. But at the same time, she frequently talks about abstract systems and refuses to name the agent (i.e. men) of women's oppression. She talks about abstract systems and institutions, conveniently ignoring who controls/maintains/benefits from those institutions (men). She waxes sentimental about how patriarchy and standard gender roles are oppressive to men and hurt their feelings, but refuses to consider the fact men nevertheless choose to maintain the status quo because it benefits them materially and sexually. For someone who is ostensibly concerned about men and their humanity, Willis refuses to consider that her morally infantilizing men and cloaking them from taking responsibility for their actions is actually harming them a million times more than any radical feminist critique of (the current paradigm of) male sexuality.
Most laughably of all, she dismisses radical feminist discourse as "Neo-Victorian", as though prudishness and Puritanical sexual repression are the only reasons any woman could possibly have for abhoring rape and pornography. It is these sorts of reductiones ad absurdum, couple with breath-taking confusion about power and gender under patriarchy, that make it borderline impossible to take her seriously. If the sexploitation-positive crowd wants to engage in substantive debate and argumentation with radical feminists, abstaining from absurd charicatures of our views would be a great place to start.
March 19, 2009
witty, informative, and frequently cutting. just how i like my feminist lit.
February 11, 2011
Ellen Willis was the head of the journalism program I was in at NYU. She was brilliant. She passed away in 2006.
June 19, 2026
// this points to her essay " toward a feminist sexual revolution " — i am yet to read the book
Okay, the author seems to be confused — concerning what exactly she wants to convey through this essay despite the fact that the premise has been established a priori imbuing a definitive tone, from the title alone i.e how to sexual revolution, but feministly ?
I do agree with some of the points she is making but there's quite a lacuna here which is why the piece is far from being held together. First, given the societal culture has its roots embedded in the historical development of the phallus — the intensity of patriarchal guilt (the guilt of not adhering to the traditional-familial structure ) is more than likely to surpass the feminist guilt ( the guilt of participating in a culture that trivializes the suffering of women over male voyeurism ) in the context of liberal sexual attitude. Willis treats traditional patriarchal guilt and feminist "neo-Victorian" guilt as somewhat equivalent psychological forces, warning that the latter curtails women's freedom and traps them in a new double bind whilst essentially both of them have entirely antagonistic agendas : one systemically aims to own and expropriate the reproductive labor of women as needed and the other is a suggested mechanism to protect women against an increasingly sexually violent culture.
She goes on to say :
" Whatever its intent, the objective effect of feminists' emphasis on controlling male sexuality particularly when that emphasis is combined with a neo-Victorian view of women's nature and the conviction that securing women's safety from male aggression should be the chief priority of the women's movement — is to undercut feminist opposition to the pro-family backlash. It provides powerful reinforcement for the right's efforts to manipulate women's fear of untrammeled male sexuality, thus intimidating women into stifling their own impulses toward freedom in order to cling to what little protection the traditional roles still offer. "
oh dear... the slaveholders will never release the slaves. Women do not look at radical feminist critique of pornography and prostitution and other components of male violence and think that they better ought to marry a man to stay safe. If women seek shelter in traditional arrangements, it is due to material and economic coercion. Creating a fictitious model like that in a cultural analysis not only undermines the essence of the cultural analysis but also the development of feminist theory.
Feminists pointing out the harmful practices of the patriarchal pogrom does not intimidate women but what does is the very material existence of those harmful practices. For a woman navigating a patriarchal world, safety from physical violence is the literal prerequisite for freedom. You cannot explore "untrammeled sexual freedom" if the material reality of that exploration includes a high statistical probability of unpunished voyeuristic exploitation. By labeling the prioritizing of women's safety as a (neo-Victorian) hindrance, Willis gaslights women's legitimate survival instincts and tells them that being afraid of structural violence makes them bad feminists. And, the Right doesn't wait for internal contradiction within feminist circles to emerge and therefore provide them with an unfair advantage to advocate for pro-family orthodoxy because well, they are going to do that either way.
The other part which bothers me is how sources are cherry picked to prove a certain point despite well established literature proves otherwise. She says :
"If one pays attention to what men consciously or unwittingly reveal about their sexual attitudes.... in everyday interaction with women - the picture that emerges is far more complicated and ambiguous. Most men, in fact, profess to want and need mutual sexual love, and often behave accordingly, though they have plenty of opportunity to do otherwise."
I won't mollycoddle anyone into believing otherwise, one can definitely choose to believe this perspective if it suits their political axis. But what rubs me the wrong way is that I don't see how "most men, in fact, profess to want and need mutual sexual love, and often behave accordingly, though they have plenty of opportunity to do otherwise" is at all relevant to a feminist analysis of sexual revolution. What does she mean by plenty of opportunity to do otherwise ? Since when we are measuring the success of a cultural revolution as such through an inherently male lens, and that too within a milieu which is supposed to be feminist in the first place ? Woman's liberation cannot be built on the charity of an oppressor who merely chooses, for the moment, to behave. In an academic sense, to mainstream only what is marginal in sexual power dynamics is to reinforce the hegemony of mainstream sexuality and hence mainstream misogyny.
I would like to quote what Andrea Dworkin had to say about how the infiltration of libertarianism within the feminist movement inhibits its value :
"They say: Pornography is
misogynist but . . . The but in this case is that it derepresses us. The victims of pornography can testify, and have, that when men get derepressed, women get hurt. These women say they are feminists. Some have worked for the defeated Equal Rights Amendment or for abortion rights or for equal pay or for lesbian and gay rights. But these days, they organise to stop us from stopping the pornographers. Most of the women who say they are feminist but work to protect pornography are lawyers or academics: lawyers like the ones who walked away from Snuff; academics who think prostitution is romantic, an unrepressed female sexuality. But whoever they are, whatever they think they are doing, the outstanding fact about them is that they are ignoring the women who have been hurt in order to help the pimps who do the hurting. They are collaborators, not feminists."
Okay, the author seems to be confused — concerning what exactly she wants to convey through this essay despite the fact that the premise has been established a priori imbuing a definitive tone, from the title alone i.e how to sexual revolution, but feministly ?
I do agree with some of the points she is making but there's quite a lacuna here which is why the piece is far from being held together. First, given the societal culture has its roots embedded in the historical development of the phallus — the intensity of patriarchal guilt (the guilt of not adhering to the traditional-familial structure ) is more than likely to surpass the feminist guilt ( the guilt of participating in a culture that trivializes the suffering of women over male voyeurism ) in the context of liberal sexual attitude. Willis treats traditional patriarchal guilt and feminist "neo-Victorian" guilt as somewhat equivalent psychological forces, warning that the latter curtails women's freedom and traps them in a new double bind whilst essentially both of them have entirely antagonistic agendas : one systemically aims to own and expropriate the reproductive labor of women as needed and the other is a suggested mechanism to protect women against an increasingly sexually violent culture.
She goes on to say :
" Whatever its intent, the objective effect of feminists' emphasis on controlling male sexuality particularly when that emphasis is combined with a neo-Victorian view of women's nature and the conviction that securing women's safety from male aggression should be the chief priority of the women's movement — is to undercut feminist opposition to the pro-family backlash. It provides powerful reinforcement for the right's efforts to manipulate women's fear of untrammeled male sexuality, thus intimidating women into stifling their own impulses toward freedom in order to cling to what little protection the traditional roles still offer. "
oh dear... the slaveholders will never release the slaves. Women do not look at radical feminist critique of pornography and prostitution and other components of male violence and think that they better ought to marry a man to stay safe. If women seek shelter in traditional arrangements, it is due to material and economic coercion. Creating a fictitious model like that in a cultural analysis not only undermines the essence of the cultural analysis but also the development of feminist theory.
Feminists pointing out the harmful practices of the patriarchal pogrom does not intimidate women but what does is the very material existence of those harmful practices. For a woman navigating a patriarchal world, safety from physical violence is the literal prerequisite for freedom. You cannot explore "untrammeled sexual freedom" if the material reality of that exploration includes a high statistical probability of unpunished voyeuristic exploitation. By labeling the prioritizing of women's safety as a (neo-Victorian) hindrance, Willis gaslights women's legitimate survival instincts and tells them that being afraid of structural violence makes them bad feminists. And, the Right doesn't wait for internal contradiction within feminist circles to emerge and therefore provide them with an unfair advantage to advocate for pro-family orthodoxy because well, they are going to do that either way.
The other part which bothers me is how sources are cherry picked to prove a certain point despite well established literature proves otherwise. She says :
"If one pays attention to what men consciously or unwittingly reveal about their sexual attitudes.... in everyday interaction with women - the picture that emerges is far more complicated and ambiguous. Most men, in fact, profess to want and need mutual sexual love, and often behave accordingly, though they have plenty of opportunity to do otherwise."
I won't mollycoddle anyone into believing otherwise, one can definitely choose to believe this perspective if it suits their political axis. But what rubs me the wrong way is that I don't see how "most men, in fact, profess to want and need mutual sexual love, and often behave accordingly, though they have plenty of opportunity to do otherwise" is at all relevant to a feminist analysis of sexual revolution. What does she mean by plenty of opportunity to do otherwise ? Since when we are measuring the success of a cultural revolution as such through an inherently male lens, and that too within a milieu which is supposed to be feminist in the first place ? Woman's liberation cannot be built on the charity of an oppressor who merely chooses, for the moment, to behave. In an academic sense, to mainstream only what is marginal in sexual power dynamics is to reinforce the hegemony of mainstream sexuality and hence mainstream misogyny.
I would like to quote what Andrea Dworkin had to say about how the infiltration of libertarianism within the feminist movement inhibits its value :
"They say: Pornography is
misogynist but . . . The but in this case is that it derepresses us. The victims of pornography can testify, and have, that when men get derepressed, women get hurt. These women say they are feminists. Some have worked for the defeated Equal Rights Amendment or for abortion rights or for equal pay or for lesbian and gay rights. But these days, they organise to stop us from stopping the pornographers. Most of the women who say they are feminist but work to protect pornography are lawyers or academics: lawyers like the ones who walked away from Snuff; academics who think prostitution is romantic, an unrepressed female sexuality. But whoever they are, whatever they think they are doing, the outstanding fact about them is that they are ignoring the women who have been hurt in order to help the pimps who do the hurting. They are collaborators, not feminists."
December 9, 2010
This is something I should have read 20 years ago, when it first came out and Radical Feminism was making waves and taking hostages.
It's difficult. Especially the stuff I don't agree with, such as her Reichian analysis offered to replace Freud's Oedipal & Electra complexes, which I don't agree with either. Fortunately she writes very well, despite the heavy stuff. Some goes down like good scotch. Some I have to stop after every paragraph to re-read so I can see if she says what I think she says, and how I feel about it. Her contempt for Dworkin is only matched by her anger and contempt for Freidan (yes, her).
Good fun and serious stuff about who we are and what matters about how we think about ourselves. Now, perhaps even more than more than ever, I could use a 60's hippie-chick telling me that I have an absolute right to my sexual joy, and so do you, and uh, can a buy you a drink?
It's difficult. Especially the stuff I don't agree with, such as her Reichian analysis offered to replace Freud's Oedipal & Electra complexes, which I don't agree with either. Fortunately she writes very well, despite the heavy stuff. Some goes down like good scotch. Some I have to stop after every paragraph to re-read so I can see if she says what I think she says, and how I feel about it. Her contempt for Dworkin is only matched by her anger and contempt for Freidan (yes, her).
Good fun and serious stuff about who we are and what matters about how we think about ourselves. Now, perhaps even more than more than ever, I could use a 60's hippie-chick telling me that I have an absolute right to my sexual joy, and so do you, and uh, can a buy you a drink?
March 29, 2008
This collection of essays will come as a shining relief and call to action for those of us who have been confused and angered by some of the turns taken by feminism in the 70s and 80s. Willis rejects cultural feminism and that which would place women on a pedestal, instead championing true equality rather than victimhood.
December 30, 2023
This book of essays describe a time in which Reagan was president, the Vietnam war was ongoing, and Roe v Wade won. The first half was hugely interesting--I was so intrigued at the ways Willis describes her experience as a Jewish feminist operating within Marxist and psychoanalyst circles. I think this book has aged fairly well, though there were some things that I disagreed with (namely her stance on pornography. Luckily Willis didn't live in a time where boys and men had 24/7 access to pornography on a pocket-sized device). However, this is probably not due to the fact that this book is now about 30 or 40 years old, but due to the fact that we simply disagree. I also found her arguments compelling and totally understandable--I get why she feels the way she does! And it enlightened me to an actual well-spoken difference in our experiences.
The latter half is about her lived experience in the United States, having traveled across the country by bus. She also discusses art criticism and more. Definitely a great read for all areas!
The latter half is about her lived experience in the United States, having traveled across the country by bus. She also discusses art criticism and more. Definitely a great read for all areas!
February 22, 2026
Willis is one of my favorite writers on cultural issues, rock music, and feminism. This volume from the early 1990s has little musical commentary, but a great deal of reflection on the previous generation's worth of feminist (and liberal Jewish) political theory and activity. Willis is always clever, sympathisable, and astute in her observation (even though she is far too enamoured of Freudian theory to my taste, and sometimes extrapolates off it into explanatory theorising which I find improbable and a bit silly). The standout for me is "Radical Feminism and Feminist Radicalism," in which she describes her history in the movement, and is a good (if succinct) guide not only to the rhetoric of the era, but also the internal theoretical conflicts within the radical feminist movement.
March 27, 2020
Interesting look at a time
Feminism in the late 70s and 80s was new, but sort of the same as now. I would like to see these topics updated to 2020, but some of them wouldn't need to be.
Feminism in the late 70s and 80s was new, but sort of the same as now. I would like to see these topics updated to 2020, but some of them wouldn't need to be.
Want to Read
May 12, 2015PUL
Displaying 1 - 11 of 11 reviews