The Prisoner of Sex

{{POV section|date=July 2022}}

The Prisoner of Sex is Mailer's response to the 1960s women's liberation movement, though he primarily offers a critique of literary critic Kate Millett. In her book Sexual Politics, Millett casts Mailer and authors Henry Miller and D. H. Lawrence as symbols of misogyny.{{Cite web |last=Caine |first=Barbara |date=2024-05-02 |title=Kate Millett pioneered the term ‘sexual politics’ and explained the links between sex and power. Her book changed my life |url=https://theconversation.com/kate-millett-pioneered-the-term-sexual-politics-and-explained-the-links-between-sex-and-power-her-book-changed-my-life-227376 |access-date=2025-04-27 |website=The Conversation |language=en-US}} Mailer's core point is that though women may try to equal men, this is unattainable and undesirable due to biological differences between the sexes. Hence, the title: we are all prisoners of sex, despite our greatest attempts to escape.

Mailer uses third person perspective in his personification of himself to express his viewpoint on the changes that occur to the human subconscious when it is suppressed with his focus placed on gender roles and female ideology. {{cite journal|last=Howley|first=Ashton |date=2006 |title= Mailer Again: Heterophobia in 'Tough Guys Don't Dance|journal=Journal of Modern Literature|volume=30|issue=1|page=32}}

Mailer's personification learns from his secretary that he is rumored to receive a Noble Prize. He is already a Pulitzer Prize winner and did not feel thrilled in receiving the news of winning another prize more concerned with his recent separation from his fourth wife. He decides to name himself FNPW-Falso Nobel: Prize Winner, Prisoner of War, Prisoner of Wedlock, or Prisoner of Prizewinner. He heads to Maine to spend the next six-weeks of the summer with his five children as a “housewife” with a mistress and a maid. His viewpoint was criticized by female social and literary critics which labeled him as a feminist anathema. {{cite book |last1=Begiebing |first1=Robert |url=https://research.ebsco.com/linkprocessor/plink?id=36ed4eb4-35cc-3b17-9053-9c15c034bc91. |title=Norman Mailer at 100: Conversations, Correlations, Confrontations |date=2003 |publisher=LSU Press |location=Baton Rouge |access-date=April 11, 2005}}

Mailer structures his work into four sections and refers to himself in the third person as "the Prize Winner" or "the Prisoner of Sex." Each section casts the author in a different role to explain an aspect of his views on women's liberation.{{Cite book |last=Mailer |first=Norman |title=The Prisoner of Sex |date=1971 |publisher=Little, Brown and Company |year= |location=Boston}}

In his attempt to understand being a woman, Mailer describes his travails in caring for his children by himself for six weeks. He writes, "He could not know whether he would have found it endurable to be born a woman or if it would have driven him out onto the drear avenues of the insane."{{sfn|Mailer|1971|p=12}} The remainder of the section consists of Mailer writing about the growing women's liberation movement and the backlash against his work he received from these "enraged Amazons, an honor guard of revolutionary vaginas," and concluding that he needed to further articulate his thoughts about women.{{sfn|Mailer|1971|p=13}}

Mailer, understood to be an acolyte in the title, begins by surveying the writings and participants of the women's liberation movement and considers women as a class in economic terms. He discusses female neurosis, blaming a woman's period for car crashes, increased admission to mental hospitals, and crime, which plays part in a larger argument about the inherent physical strength of women compared to men. Mailer discusses the philosophical and existential purpose of the female orgasm and what it means for men and mankind when women figure out how to orgasm without the assistance of a penis. The clitoral orgasm where no man or phallus is needed, as opposed to a vaginal orgasm, is an aspect of the women's liberation movement that shows Mailer's inner fear of not being "needed."

Mailer offers a critique of the work of Millett. He opens the section by proclaiming that "by any major literary perspective, the land of Millett is a barren and mediocre terrain."{{sfn|Mailer|1971|p=93}} He discusses Millet's assessment of his work and two of his favorite literary figures, Miller and Lawrence. He critiques her use of quotes and the conclusions that she comes to through her choice of quotes. He believes that she does not give the authors any credit for the work they did to understand women, taking issue with her only drawing attention to their oppression of women. He continues his discussion of sex by debating the power dynamics of male prison sex, equating power and dominance to manliness, and submission and penetration to the societal example of a woman. Mailer makes the case that succumbing to the natural depth of womanhood and manhood is a necessity, essentially arguing that womanhood is based on the confines of the womb. His discussion turns into the evolution of sex as a transaction. In prison, sex is a transaction, a transaction of power. Mailer writes that heterosexual sex became transactional and more like homosexual sex with the invention of the pill, as there is no chance of conception. Only power, cruelty, lust, desire, or pleasure is traded.

Mailer discusses the genetics of sex and how it is determined beyond basic chromosomal knowledge. He theorizes how the determination of sex may, through the selective fertilization of an egg, be a larger meaning than just chance. Mailer discusses how even the choice of a woman to have sex with a particular man has an impact on the outcome of a child, putting great meaning onto the act of sex. Mailer concludes the book by coming full circle to his own life. He describes an example of a couple where responsibilities are shared and are given equal importance. His work should not suffer unless her work were more important than his—and he thinks that is not possible. Mailer makes a final call for succumbing to the differences between sexes that are rooted in biological differences. A perfect world for Mailer would be one in which "people would found their politics on the fundamental demands they make of sex,"{{sfn|Mailer|1971|p=229}} one in which women's liberation supporters would accept that liberation from sex simply is not possible.

Mailer offers differing views of women. He states that "his respect for the power of women was so large that…[it] would tear through him"{{sfn|Mailer|1971|p=44}} before later arguing that women should be kept in cages.{{sfn|Mailer|1971|p=46}} He stands by his statement that he does not hate women—even though some other parts of the book seem to contradict this. He states that his past writings do not reflect his actual beliefs; however, his personal statements often contradict this. Mailer writes about how the "goal" of women's liberation seeks to destroy separation and uniqueness of the two sexes, which in turn would ruin the sacred and essential natural design of sex. Gender and sexuality are described with reverence and a belief that they are part of nature's "spiritual design," and that sexual technologies and the changing social constructs of gender were contributing to the demise of the "majesty of men and women fucking."{{Cite web |title=THE EXISTENTIAL SUBLIME: MAILER'S THE PRISONER OF SEX. - Free Online Library |url=https://www.thefreelibrary.com/THE+EXISTENTIAL+SUBLIME:+MAILER'S+THE+PRISONER+OF+SEX.-a0514657559 |access-date=2025-04-24 |website=www.thefreelibrary.com}}

The Women's Liberation movement encouraged equal treatment for both women and men, and Mailer "is too afraid that similarity will disrupt the social and sexual 'balance' achieved by masculinity and femininity" that he believed to be necessary.{{Cite book |last=McKinley |first=Maggie |title=Understanding Norman Mailer |date=2017 |publisher=University of South Carolina Press |year=2017 |location=Columbia, SC |pages=70-72}} This leads to his concern with the development of technology. There is an overarching sense of fear that the development of technology will make people obsolete and erase individuality. With the development of technology related to contraception, he is concerned that men would become less necessary for sex, giving women a monopoly over the power of creation. Mailer is concerned that the development of technology will upset the necessary social balance between men and women, stating that the use of birth control makes sex a “transaction—when no hint remains of the awe that a life in these circumstances can be conceived.”{{Sfn|Mailer|1971|p=124}}

Mailer explores the distinctions between his own views on gender and those associated with fascist ideology. While acknowledging surface-level similarities in language, Mailer emphasizes a fundamental difference: unlike fascism, which he argues suppressed instincts and portrayed femininity as radical, he views men and women as inherently different but equally influenced by both masculine and feminine psychological traits. He rejects traditional associations of strength with heterosexual masculinity and weakness with femininity, arguing that such oppositions are misleading. Mailer believed that men and women are very different creatures. He believes that men should be known for their strength and instincts, while women are objectified based on emotional disparities.

Mailer sees the subconscious as an important source of gut feelings, instincts, and mental well-being, and he warns that ignoring it can be harmful. At the same time, he’s careful not to idealize instincts too much, pointing out that fascist regimes—especially the Nazis—used that kind of talk to manipulate people. He also warns against strict ideas about gender, saying they can support sexist systems and open the door to authoritarian rule disguised as tradition.{{Cite journal |last=Howley |first=Ashton |date=2006 |title=Mailer Again: Heterophobia in 'Tough Guys Don't Dance' |journal=Journal of Modern Literature |volume=30 |issue=1 |pages=31-46}}

Mailer's content, particularly The Prisoner of Sex, presents his writing style as forceful and urgent. Wording that might appear uncomfortable to some readers were the forefront of his work. He exposed the uncomfortable, the tough conversations, and the unasked questions. Known as a defining writer in the world of journalism, Mailer used hard hitting topics to get his opinions across. In this work, Mailer approaches his opinion as a response to Millett's critique on women's liberation.

According to J. Michael Lennon, Mailer’s writing style was marked by his distinctive use of metaphor, which Lennon described as one of his most significant linguistic talents. Influenced early on by editorial feedback, Mailer developed a wide-ranging and often visceral metaphorical style that became a hallmark of his prose. His metaphors, often carnal and vivid, served as vehicles for complex ideas and thematic resonance throughout his career.{{Cite journal |last=Sipiora |first=Phillip |date=2013 |title=The Complications of Norman Mailer: A Conversation with J. Michael Lennon |url=https://projectmailer.net/pm/The_Mailer_Review/Volume_7,_2013/The_Complications_of_Norman_Mailer:_A_Conversation_with_J._Michael_Lennon |journal=The Mailer Review |volume=7 |issue=1 |pages=23-65 |via=}}

Robert J Begiebing discusses the conflict between Mailer and Millett in chapter three of his memoir Norman Mailer at 100: Conversations, Correlations, and Confrontations. Begiebing states that in the early 1970s, Mailer became a controversial figure in feminist debates after being criticized by female critics. He responded by writing the book The Prisoner of Sex in response to Millett's Sexual Politics. He mainly addressed Millett's critique of male writers, including himself. Millett's book is significant for its detailed historical account of women's subjugation, but Mailer focused on her literary criticism, particularly of Lawrence and Miller, rather than her historical analysis.{{Cite book |last=Begiebing |first=Robert J. |title=Norman Mailer at 100: conversations, correlations, confrontations |date=2023 |publisher=Louisiana State University Press |isbn=978-0-8071-7813-3 |location=Baton Rouge}}

In part 2 of the book, Mailer agrees with feminist Linda Phelps that society must change fundamentally to create a just world for both women and men, rather than women merely emulating men in positions of power. Mailer’s stance on women's rights is complex. He supports the legislative agenda for the Equal Rights Amendment but doubts its success without systemic economic change. He critiques the women's liberation movement for its technophilic tendencies and perceived totalitarian vision.

The Prisoner of Sex hopes for a more sympathetic response from modern female readers and critics. In part 4 of the book, "The Prisoner," Mailer moves from criticism to speculative arguments about the mystical implications of sex and conception. Mailer's speculations on women's natural abilities to avoid pregnancy and the idea of a "gestation free elite" are unlikely to resonate with contemporary female readers.

Mailer fails to offer alternatives for women's liberation from domestic or corporate servitude. He questions the responsibilities of institutional leaders to address financial inequity and childcare solutions. Mailer suggests male authors should create strong female characters to stand against their male counterparts.

The Prisoner of Sex became a book in 1971 following its Harper's Magazine release by the Little, Brown and Company.{{Sfn|Mailer|1971}} It originated as an essay in Harper's Magazine's entire March 1971 edition.{{cite web |title=History About Harper's Magazine |url=https://harpers.org/history/ |website=Harper's Magazine |publisher=Harper's Magazine |access-date=April 11, 2025}} Harper's Magazine included a preface to the essay assuring readers that Mailer's work on the women's liberation focused on men and women's sexual relationships.{{cite journal |last1=Barnes |first1=Annette |date=1972 |title=Norman Mailer: A Prisoner of Sex |url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/25088229 |journal=The Massachusetts Review |volume=13 |issue=1/2 |page=269 |pages= |access-date=April 11, 2025}} Willie Morris the editor in chief of Harper's Magazine was disturbed by The Prisoner of Sex's sexual discussion and resigned in 1971.{{cite journal |last1=Whitman |first1=Alden |title=Morris Resings in Harper's Dispute |journal=The New York Times |date=March 5, 1971 |page=37 |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1971/03/05/archives/morris-resigns-in-harpers-dispute-morris-resigns-as-top-editor-in.html |access-date=April 11, 2025}} The Prisoner of Sex became a finalist for the 1972 National Book Awards for Contemporary Affairs presented by the National Book Foundation for its influence on the women's liberation movement.{{cite web |title=The Prisoner of Sex |url=https://www.nationalbook.org/books/the-prisoner-of-sex/ |website=National Book Foundation |publisher=The National Book Foundation |access-date=April 11, 2025}}

On May 23, 1971, The New York Times published Brigid Brophy's review of The Prisoner of Sex. Her piece was titled, "Meditations on Norman Mailer, by Norman Mailer, Against the Day a Norman Mailest Comes Along."{{Cite news |last=Brophy |first=Brigid |date=1971-05-23 |title=Meditations on Norman Mailer, by Norman Mailer, against the day a Norman Mailest comes along |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1971/05/23/archives/the-prisoner-of-sex-240-pp-boston-little-brown-co-595-prisoner-of.html |access-date=2025-04-20 |work=The New York Times |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331}} Brophy was an English novelist and critic, as well as a feminist and campaigner for social reforms.{{Cite journal |last=Andermahr |first=Sonya |date=2018-09-15 |title=Introduction: Brigid Brophy |url=https://academic.oup.com/cww/article/12/2/137/4983096 |journal=Contemporary Women's Writing |volume=12 |issue=2 |pages=137–141 |doi=10.1093/cww/vpx040 |issn=1754-1476}}

Brophy does not believe Mailer accomplished a fair critique of Millett's Sexual Politics. In fact, Brophy believes Mailer could have dissected Millett's work better to reveal its bias. However, Mailer is not the man for the job, as she points out. She believes a better author, perhaps Gore Vidal, could have provided a more critical analysis and response to Millett's fallacies. Brophy points out the flaws in both men's and women's work; therefore, she provides feedback on her misgivings about Millett's novel. Brophy critiques Millett's writing within her article, calling out the novelist's "blindness."

Brophy points out that "Mr. Mailer is not ... a champion of other men's rights, any more than he is of women's." She addresses Mailer's choice to write his piece in third-person narrative, asserting that, "Mr. Mailer writes in the third person, presumably because the pronoun 'I' wouldn't remind the reader often enough that Mr. Mailer is a he." Brophy, on the whole, is unimpressed with Mailer's literary ability, analysis, and wit. Brophy asserted Mailer is quite full of himself.

Brophy is past the two sexes butting heads to outwit or argue with one another. Instead, she wants people (men and women) to see the ways consumerism culture has defined the sexes and has created the binary which both sexes suffer from. She asks her readers to move past both Millett and Mailer. She writes, "We need a vast movement of Human Lib and we're offered a diversionary, though not diverting, sideshow. Millettancy versus the Mailer Reaction is a rigged fight. It's a revival of the traditional slapstick of sex hostility, a routine that became obsolete when it became unnecessary for anyone to be left holding an unwanted baby. Perhaps the object is to embroil men and women in fictitious and irrational sex warfare, so that we will go obediently on buying our His and Hers consumer goods (including His and Hers consumer books) and never notice that the system is dehumanizing us all."

In the 1972 Winter Issue of The Massachusetts Review, Annette Barnes critiques The Prisoner of Sex for six pages. In her article, "Norman Mailer: A Prisoner of Sex," she does not outright condemn Mailer's position in his novel. Instead, Barnes is reflective of why Mailer has his opinions of sex and the sexes. She questions what it means when Mailer calls himself a "prisoner of sex." She finds Mailer has not proven his argument by the end of his novel; instead she claims, "Mailer gives us a vision, not an argument." She acknowledges that Mailer has written himself as the hero of his novel. However, Barnes highlights that "the journey of the hero, although often enlightening, is also a journey of self-justification and even self-deception."{{Cite journal |last=Barnes |first=Annette |date=1972 |title=Norman Mailer: A Prisoner of Sex |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/25088229 |journal=The Massachusetts Review |volume=13 |issue=1/2 |pages=269–274 |issn=0025-4878}}

Barnes provides a poignant summarization of the themes of Mailer's novel. She tackles Mailer's interesting perspective of creation and technology, writing, "Mailer fantasizes much over lost seeds, over lost creations. Creation is a key. Women are needed in the process of creating new life and any technology which makes either man or woman non-crucial is Evil." Barnes critiques Mailer's opinion of creation for its sexism because "Having babies is no simple event. Once the creature descends from the womb, he or she needs care. Who gets the job? What Mailer never comes to terms with is the price he requires of women for their participation in creation." Barnes does not understand why Mailer or anyone should believe Mailer's opinion over that of a woman who actually has knowledge and ownership of a womb, of which Mailer speaks so reverently.

Perhaps Mailer's greatest perspective in The Prisoner of Sex is his opinion of technology and its future. Barnes takes note of this but instills her own opinion of Mailer and his sexism: "Mailer fears technology. It depersonalizes. He fears its imprint on contraception, planned parenthood, and eugenics. But he writes, as if in light of the general depersonalization of man by the machine, the depersonalization of women by man is a lesser evil. At least a man is thrusting into you, not just a plastic prick."

Due to the controversy caused by The Prisoner of Sex in intellectual circles, a “Dialogue on Women’s Liberation” discussion panel was held on April 30, 1971 to address feminist responses to The Prisoner of Sex.{{Cite web |last=Gonzales |first=Dillon |date=2020-08-14 |title='Town Bloody Hall' Criterion Blu-Ray Review - A Lively Snapshot Of The Feminist Movement |url=https://geekvibesnation.com/town-bloody-hall-criterion-blu-ray-review-a-lively-snapshot-of-the-feminist-movement/ |access-date=2025-04-27 |website=Geek Vibes Nation |language=en-US}} Mailer participated in the panel at New York City's Town Hall. To increase publicity of the event, Mailer contracted filmmaker D. A. Pennebaker, whom he collaborated with in Wild 90 (1968) and Maidstone (1970), to film the exchange.

The event featured prominent feminist writers and critics, including Jacqueline Ceballos, Germaine Greer, Jill Johnston, and Diana Trilling, all of whom had read Mailer's work. Notable audience members included Betty Friedan and Cynthia Ozick; Ozick later noted that she had finished the book during her train ride to the event. The evening began with each panelist delivering a ten-minute statement before joining Mailer for a group discussion, beginning with Ceballos, head of the New York chapter of the National Organization for Women.

The speakers in attendance shared their perspectives on Mailer's works and questioned his depiction of women and their role in The Prisoner of Sex. Mailer, who acted as the moderator, frequently interrupted the speakers and expressed strong disagreement with their statements. Audience members, who often directed their questions directly to Mailer and not the panel, were also met with critical responses.{{Cite web |last=Doherty |first=Thomas |date=2020-10-18 |title=Film Review: "Town Bloody Hall" -- Rip-Roaring Feminist Cross Fire |url=https://artsfuse.org/213913/film-review-town-bloody-hall-rip-roaring-feminist-cross-fire/ |access-date=2025-04-27 |language=en-US}} The discussion became increasingly contentious, marked by interruptions and heated exchanges. The event was later documented in the 1979 film Town Bloody Hall.{{Cite web |title=Town Bloody Hall |url=https://www.criterion.com/films/30213-town-bloody-hall?srsltid=AfmBOoq1w9y-b1f8_-wVw55_I1ftNeAWGZ18M_cPCbXO32n6555dClLI |access-date=2025-04-27 |website=The Criterion Collection |language=en}}

Germaine Greer's essay My Mailer Problem, published in the September 1971 issue of Esquire, is a critical examination of Norman Mailer's views on women and his controversial behavior. Greer critiques Mailer's misogynistic attitudes, particularly as expressed in his book The Prisoner of Sex. She challenges his portrayal of women and his stance on the women's liberation movement, highlighting the contradictions and flaws in his arguments. Greer's essay is both a personal and intellectual confrontation with Mailer, reflecting broader feminist critiques of his work and persona during that era.{{Cite web |last=Greer |first=Germaine |title=My Mailer Problem {{!}} Esquire {{!}} SEPTEMBER 1971 |url=https://classic.esquire.com/article/1971/9/1/my-mailer-problem |access-date=2025-04-15 |website=Esquire {{!}} The Complete Archive |language=en-US}}

Key points from the essay are:

1. Critique of Mailer's Misogyny: Greer challenges Mailer's portrayal of women, arguing that his views are deeply misogynistic. She points out the contradictions in his arguments and highlights how his personal behavior towards women undermines his credibility.
2. Feminist Perspective: Greer uses her feminist perspective to dissect Mailer's arguments, emphasizing the importance of the women's liberation movement and how Mailer's views are out of touch with the realities faced by women.
3. Personal and Intellectual Confrontation: The essay is both a personal and intellectual confrontation with Mailer. Greer doesn't just critique his work; she also addresses his public persona and the impact of his behavior on his literary legacy.
4. Broader Cultural Context: Greer places Mailer's work within the broader cultural context of the time, showing how his views reflect and perpetuate the patriarchal attitudes prevalent in society.

{{reflist}}

{{Norman Mailer}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Prisoner of Sex, The}}

Category:1971 essays

Category:Essays by Norman Mailer

Category:Social history of the United States

Category:Works originally published in American magazines

Category:Works originally published in Harper's Magazine

Category:Works originally published in literary magazines