WOMEN in at least two Houses, Adams and Lowell, have tried in the last several months to form women's groups. Nothing but their self-definition as "women's groups" is unusual; most activities consist of speakers' programs or social activities.

But both groups have met with hostility from men and women in these Houses who think exclusively women's groups are at least unnecessary and perhaps counterproductive. Political solutions to "women's problems," according to the argument, are best developed by men and women in groups together. The people who show interest in groups of one sex or the other are unable to approach issues jointly because of "personal problems."

This argument can be approached on at least three levels. At one level the argument is obvious; at another, it is circular; at a third, it rests on confused assumptions as pernicious as they are wrong.

Obviously, some sexually exclusive groups are unnecessary or counterproductive. Women's auxiliary-type groups, which rest on the assumption of a subordinate role for women, are clearly not useful in any movement for the redefinition of sex roles. Neither is there much point to sexually exclusive groups whose restricted membership is unrelated to the activities or issues around which the group has formed.

The reasoning about personal problems is partly tautological. To be emotionally healthy, according to conventional definitions, is to be "well-adjusted." To be well-adjusted is to operate according to a set of personal values in harmony with prevailing social values and existing institutions.

But then, by definition, someone well-adjusted can't be a social critic when it comes to sexual politics or to any other issue. Defining psychological health to mean merely the overt acceptance of social convention defines radicals automatically as emotionally upset while paying little attention to personal feelings as a basis for determining health or disturbance.

But the third level of argument is the most difficult and most important. It is true that many radicals enter political groups partly out of feelings of personal distress. The question is how such problems relate to the group's goals; specifically, is a group's political ideology any less "valid" because people have deeply personal reasons for wanting to join the group?

Sometimes, it is. A group's ability to construct a coherent political program or to carry out the program it adopts may be undermined by members' unconscious motivations which the group leaves unexamined. For example, if 25 people frustrated with their inability to obtain conventional roles of political leadership join a group dedicated to collective decision-making, the competition that is likely to ensure will subvert the group's aims. The program would be subverted even if the members believe subconsciously in authoritarian leadership.

But more often, the relationship between members' psychological responses to issues and the program a group may be trying to work out offers the potential to strengthen both the group and its members. It is in this context that both women's and men's groups are useful and necessary.

Groups of women or men only can facilitate a more honest examination of individual psychology. Sexually mixed groups of even self-proclaimed radicals often cannot address women's issues effectively because of personal tensions between women and men radicals. Women members often hesitate to express their feelings, or they express themselves in a way which is geared unwittingly to win the approval of men in the group. Men members similarly fall into attempts to dominate the discussion or into a competition to show who was the most "oppressed" by society's imposition of a machismo-oriented male role.

Mixed groups also afford women the opportunity to avoid direct political negotiation with women, and men to avoid emotional confrontation with men. Rather than breaking down old roles in a new situation, men and women in a mixed group often focus comments only on members of the opposite sex, ignoring the problems within each sex and taking up the easier task of expressing resentment toward the other group.

Such unexamined problems can turn inevitable activities such as the attempt to divide tasks or to choose group leaders into organizational wars. Some women would rather elect a male leader than have another woman win more approval from the group than they. Some women "can't see working" under women leaders because winning the approval of a male leader still seems more natural. Men, in turn, apply extraordinary double standards. That leadership role in an organization which carries greater symbolic value is given to the man because of his supposed strengths; but a woman's strengths are counted as weaknesses. They are arguments for giving her any job with less symbolic significance but more clearly defined, often tedious work. ("If she's good, we should keep her where she'll do the most work.") Men are elected for their "forceful commitment," but women are bypassed for being "emotional or abrasive."

But all-women's or all-men's liberation groups have positive advantages beyond the pitfalls they avoid. The most important is the opportunity they provide to see how universal certain "personal problems" are which are directly related to political issues. Most often, problems we perceive as uniquely ours are in fact the consequences of socially defined experiences. In this sense, it is not only valid but necessary to develop political strategies to overcome such problems.

In this process, a framework arises--a group vocabulary--through which these personal problems and problems of sexual politics generally can be better understood. As remarkable as is the breakdown which often occurs in mixed groups, what is more remarkable is how little such breakdowns are understood if the group's members don't already have the verbal means to discuss their interactions. When double standards are applied, those culpable deny that their obvious self-contradictions are contradictory, sometimes contending that certain events are not really taking place.

What I am describing would be an ideal group, a group in which each member's confrontation with his or her and the other member's problems would lead to an understanding of each person's relation to a final, well-planned political strategy. But the vision described is ultimately not a romantic one. Problems in achieving such goals are immense, but the process assumes no more than that what oppresses people as individuals most often oppresses them systematically as members of some defined group.

Ultimately, I believe, the consequence of men's and women's groups will be mixed political groups with new resources at their disposal, new ways of looking at individuals and at society, a new range of options in politics and personal relations. Because this is the ultimate goal, I look to groups not as threats but as possible examples.

The fear most people have of groups is that things will be done to them, that they will do things they would not otherwise do as individuals. The assumption is that relationships are formed before values are agreed upon. But political groups, like friendships, should be based on a shared set of values, a shared understanding. It is in trying to work out cooperatively how to enact what each individual believes that relationships are formed.

It is in such self-conscious political and social groups that we best see ourselves as social beings. Because sexual politics cuts so close to the core of most people's personal doubts, it is liberating just to feel that the battles inside us are episodes in a war we need not fight alone.