The misc. thread, 2

This article isn't wholly satisfying to me but it at least approaches something I've been trying to understand and express for years now.

Men Recommend David Foster Wallace to Me

This paragraph:

It feels bad to read a book by a straight cis man about misogyny. It feels bad when this book contains some relatively graphic depictions of sexual assault. This is par for the course, when the course is reading books and the par is the Western canon. What feels worse is having this man’s work recommended to you, over and over, by men who have talked over you, talked down to you, coerced you into certain things, physically forced you into others, and devalued your opinion in ways too subtle to be worth explaining in an essay (as in the interviews, where the hideous men are the only characters we hear from). Either these Wallace-recommending men don’t realize that they’re the hideous men in question, or they think self-awareness is the best anyone could expect from them.

And this observation strikes me as important:

I’ve never heard a woman express shock or horror on hearing that a man has never read Beloved. It wouldn’t occur to most women to recommend books by women to men the way men recommend books by men to women.

The other day I started listening to philosopher's Alain Badiou's 2013 seminar on femininity, structured around the question of whether "Woman" can be a philosophical category such as "Man". I didn't have time for more than the first ten minutes (it's very long) so no idea yet how Badiou answers his question, but I want to take it over--WHY isn't "Woman" a philosophical category like "Man" is, WHY don't we, WHY don't MEN, identify with the subject "Woman" as women have and are expected to identify with, or at least recognise themselves, in "Man"?

And thinking back to Solnit's essay on Lolita, or men vs. women reading Lolita and similar, and my eternal question about how come so much of average entertainment for average men contains extreme sadistic violence against women, it's all connected.

The common ground, the reason for it all, is men refusing to empathise and identify with women. At best, women can expect, maybe, sometimes, some sympathy. But never identification, never solidarity as being "the same", never the feeling that the injustice committed against women is injustice committed against men. In contrast, women are educated, formally and privately, to identify and empathise with men, to find themselves "included" in the male subject despite being discriminated against by the very "subject" that supposedly includes them.

(We know: daughters are encouraged to find inspiration and role models in their fathers. Sons are not encouraged to find inspiration and role models in their mothers (in fact the only example I know is a recent fictional one in the TV series Scott & Bailey). Girls read books with and about male heroes as a matter of course; boys don't do the reverse.)

Coyle says about Wallace's Brief interviews with hideous men basically what Solnit says about Lolita, addressing the male admirer: this is not new to me, and it is known to me in ways it is not known to you, as a personal or personalised trauma constantly revived through small and large events. Can YOU understand, can YOU see THAT?

But they don't. It's interesting how it all stops for them, as Coyle notes, at "self-awareness". "I'm a dipshit brother to dipshits", in essence--and in no way does it diminish the admiration they excite. Their shittiness in the end is less important and of less consequence than their--brilliant, magisterial, genius--skill at dissecting and presenting it.

So there's one source of frustration. It's not that women don't or can't appreciate Nabokov and Wallace. But that endless, Western-canon-and-beyond-long having your face rubbed in humiliation and misogynistic sadism--and having to rhapsodise about the beauty of style and skill with which it is done... it's time those "clever" boys thought past their egotistic successes in self-expression to how the other half feels.

This article, by Francine Prose, re. The Handmaid's Tale, the Hulu show, is a somewhat different take and I kinda agree with it.

http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2017/05/04/selling-her-suffering-handmaids-tale/

"Watching the show, however, I began to think that it was neither a useful warning about the patriarchy’s hostile plan for women, nor a proactive attempt to thwart those dark intentions. Gradually, it occurred to me that I was instead watching a seven-hour-long orgy of violence against women—promoted and marketed as high-minded, politically astute popular entertainment. In what sense is it “feminist” to provide viewers with a glossy, sensationalized portrayal of women’s deepest anxieties and paranoias? What exactly is feminist about seeing women insulted, raped, humiliated, disfigured, beaten, tasered, tortured—and subjected to the sadistic whims of other women? If this is feminism, then so is girl-on-girl mud wrestling, or vintage prison films like Women Behind Bars."

She goes on to say a lot more.

>2 jennybhatt:

Yep, just what I said I feared. With the caveat that I started watching the first ep and made it only up to the scene when some woman is instructing another woman (who we have seen chased through the woods with her daughter, and then captured), and the husband enters and they drone on religiously evilly and the captive just sits there and yeses everything like a fucking brainless blank space cadet instead of breaking furniture over their fucking heads... I just don't want.

Here's the thing--I meant to ask this anyway--unless someone can tell me that that's just the intro into the show of full-on resistance and violent armed combat in which I will also get to see hideous men's brains splattered all over my screen every five minutes until the revolution, in short an adequate and complete revenge and reset, I'm not watching. What the FUCK is the purpose? I have colleagues who have helped out in women's clinics in the Congo, operating and aiding thousands--THOUSANDS!--of women raped so viciously they remain maimed for life, I have volunteered in a shelter here, I can drop by the cancer ward and see women who had ten children by the time they were thirty who weren't allowed to or knew to see a doctor until their flesh was literally falling apart--why the FUCK would I need to watch made-up Hollywood actors, especially morons who are "NOT FEMINIST NOT ME NEV-EEER" procure made-up images of women torture porn?

Mind you, this is not a criticism of the book at all, books are different animals.

But no. And yes, of course it would look pretty. And of course it would feature sexy girlie fights and graphic rape and drool sentimentally over maternity and babies.

Fuck it a million times and again.

I got through all 4 episodes and, so far, there has been little to no resistance -- 1 escape attempt that went wrong.

I will say that the rape or "ceremony" isn't as bad as I thought it would have been. The book made me imagine it worse in my head. The movie version was not good either. Not justifying it, of course.

But the end scene in episode 4, which I think is the end of Season 1, vaguely implies that some kind of rebellion is coming (hope that's not a spoiler). So we'll see in Season 2 -- if I can keep myself interested enough.

I will say that, from a political timing standpoint, it's also kinda interesting to see how many people on Twitter are making funny-but-not-funny comments with reference to Handmaid's Tale about the healthcare act changes that just got voted in by the House.

http://ew.com/tv/2017/05/04/handmaids-tale-ahca-republican-health-care-vote/

I am not planning to watch either, at least not now. But it's funny that you say books are different animals. I agree with that, but I'm not sure why. Is it the voyeuristic nature of film, that it can't but help glamorize the violence it depicts even in a supposedly negative way? Is it because we bring ourselves to books, we are an active participant in a way, whereas film is always passive? Not sure, but it's interesting to think about.

>4 jennybhatt:

Thanks Jenny, it's probably a no-go for me although I will look out for opinions once it's finished airing.

>5 sturlington:

Yeah, I think we are more passive when we watch than when we read--although there are tons of books out there that do their darnedest to provide as much sadistic pleasure and misogynistic thrills too, of course. But I'm kinda sure, although I haven't read it, that Atwood's isn't that sort of book.

And yes, having it all visually pretty and slick is majorly problematic and sickening. The condition of women described isn't a remote fantasy or evil fairy tale or metaphor, it's actually pretty close to the constraints on lives of--probably?--most women on earth. Treating women as nothing but walking wombs, sex objects, man's property is still more common than uncommon, is it not? Even among the most "civilised". So, yeah. I wish there were more combativeness and show of resistance. I want to see angry women, women fighting, flipping tables, punching, saying NO, you will not pass.

A show that I found very satisfying recently was "Sweet/Vicious" on MTV. It's about a young woman in college who gets raped by her best friend's boyfriend, but the school questions her veracity and convinces her not to report it because he's a sports star. So she studies martial arts over the summer and comes back to school as a vigilante who kicks the butts of all the guys on campus who are accused of sexual assault and not punished by the school.

Yes, violence is bad and no one should be a vigilante in real life. But we've seen the same story a million times about a man who turns to violence because a woman got raped, so why can't a woman turn to violence?? (And the show does address the fact that this violence is stemming from her trauma.)

Unfortunately, the show just got cancelled after one season.

>6 LolaWalser: And yes, having it all visually pretty and slick is majorly problematic and sickening.

The Hollywood demand that actors be visually appealing -- that the women be "pretty" and the men be, at least "not ugly" -- otherwise people won't watch flies in the face of any feminist perspective of human value or worth. In a story like that Handmaid's Tale, you could say that the requirement that the leads be attractive in order for the film to be a success actually undercuts the whole point of the book -- which is an allegory of the ultimate objectification of women.

It probably says something not very good about the film (the original one I saw -- with Natasha Richardson) that the most effective and memorable roles were those of Fay Dunaway and Robert Duvall. Partly because they are just great actors, but also because they played the parts of people who bought and exploited the objectification. Chilling, because it is nothing we don't see everyday in some form or other. But the Kate and Nick characters? Unrealized. It made me wonder if the probably was in the actors, or in the fact that the producers and directors' hearts weren't really in it somehow. If they just couldn't see the point or the value of a self-actualized woman in such a scenario. Kate was pretty much in it to get pregnant and get rescued.

The whole thing turned me off cinematic interpretations of the book -- at least from Hollywood -- so I haven't watched the Hulu series.

ETA: and by the way, Lola, ever since you posted >1 LolaWalser: I've been thinking about the idea of "woman as a philosophical category" as "man" is -- it's been very distracting! I want to say "yes" but I can't quite get there without tripping up into neuter humanistic language, only to discover such language isn't neuter at all, but "male."

>6 LolaWalser: I hear ya.

That said, I still think of the original epilogue in the book, where, in a distant future, the world is no longer in this dystopia and the country is back to being the USA, but not quite the same USA we live in. I'm assuming that the writers will work to fill in those gaps in this TV version to show how a fairer and equal world comes into place. I'm hopeful for that. I'm probably still in for Season 2 just to see how they choose to do that.

I started rereading Joan Didion's The White Album a short while ago -- mainly because I wanted to revisit her literary style.

I had totally forgotten about one of the essays here about 'The Woman's Movement'. It was written in 1972 and it is an absolute evisceration of 60s and 70s feminism. I know there have been other critics of that second-wave feminism too -- Camille Paglia, for example. I can't read much of the latter's work without getting a headache, though. That is more to do with me than her as I probably don't have that intellectual fortitude needed yet.

Back to Didion, though. Here's the essay if you haven't read it: http://stage.centerforthehumanities.org/sites/default/files/media/Katie%20Roiphe...

Interested in thoughts of you all here, please. I know the essay is old but the thinking is not -- I know many women who still think like this today.

On the one hand, I agree with her that there was probably a lot misunderstood about feminism back then and there were far too many dog-whistles. That said, I find her stance that women had choices to switch off or turn away or ignore or dismiss things troubling. In today's world, where misogyny comes from so many avenues 24/7 and countries where women do not have the luxury of choice, this essay seems a bit naive and uninformed. I don't know what Didion's stance was later in life as I haven't followed her writing closely enough. I do intend to pick up other essay collections of hers, though.

Thanks.

>10 jennybhatt:

I stopped reading after this:

This ubiquitous construct was everyone's victim but her own. She was
persecuted even by her gynecologist, who made her beg in vain for
contraceptives. She particularly needed contraceptives because she was
raped on every date, raped by her husband, and raped finally on the
abortionist's table. During the fashion for shoes with pointed toes, she,
like "many women," had her toes amputated. She was so intimidated by
cosmetic advertising that she would sleep "huge portions" of her day in
order to forestall wrinkling, and when awake she was enslaved by
detergent commercials on television. She sent her child to a nursery
school where the little girls huddled in a "doll corner," and were
forcibly restrained from playing with building blocks. Should she work,
she was paid "three to ten times less" than an (always) unqualified man
holding the same job, was prevented from attending business lunches
because she would be "embarrassed" to appear in public with a man not

The Women's Movement 1/29/14 12:10 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/1972/07/30/books/didion-movement.html Page 5 of 7

because she would be "embarrassed" to appear in public with a man not
her husband, and, when she traveled alone, faced a choice between
humiliation in a restaurant and "eating a doughnut" in her hotel room.
The half-truths, repeated, authenticated themselves. The bitter fancies
assumed their own logic. To ask the obvious-why she did not get
herself another gynecologist, another job, why she did not get out of
bed and turn off the television set, or why, the most eccentric detail, she
stayed in hotels where only doughnuts could be obtained from room
service-was to join this argument at its own spooky level, a level which
had only the most tenuous and unfortunate relationship to the actual
condition of being a woman. That many women are victims of
condescension and exploitation and sex-role stereotyping was scarcely
news, but neither was it news that other women are not: nobody forces
women to buy the package.

I don't know enough about 1970s feminism in the US or generally to understand the half of it, but the sheer obtuseness in that bit is too much. No wonder she reminded you of Paglia.

A waste of time, imo.

Looking around for more historical context (not much success, lots of mentions of that essay but no serious criticism), I came across an article praising a recent biography of hers, with this observation among others:

She never got involved in the women’s movement, because, according to a friend, “she was beyond that.” Didion is, for all her sensitivity and curiosity, more than a little bit of a class snob. “Dunne joked about her archconservative values,” Daugherty writes. For much of her life, it seems, she voted Republican.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/09/the-elitist-allure-of-joan-...

>11 LolaWalser: Yeah, that was the bit that made me sit straight up when I read it last night. :) I reread it right away thinking maybe I was missing something in what she was saying. I, too, started searching for reviews or other commentary and couldn't find much that spoke to this particular essay.

Yes, she grew up in mostly Republican circles in CA. I read an article/review and I can't find the link anymore, but it said that she began leaning more left eventually when she learned more about why certain lower-income people turn to crime, what makes certain classes of people more susceptible to abuse, etc. She has also written elsewhere, apparently, that her Republican values are more the old-school type where she wanted limited government interference, a free citizenry, and so on.

So, it seems to me that she was simply uninformed or misinformed back in the 70s and, well, much of the 80s too. I haven't read enough of her latest work to know if things have indeed changed as that article I read indicated. Should have saved the link.

Thing is, as much as I did not like this particular essay in the collection, I do agree with much of the rest she has written here. Even after all this time. Oh well.

>13 jennybhatt:

It's hard to imagine Didion being uninformed, I think it comes down to radical difference in viewpoints. Assuming her views on feminism remained the same as that (isn't she still alive?)

There's always some "strong female character" who made it or thinks she made it on her own telling other women to toughen up, basically. Paglia does it by extolling men. It always cracks me up...

>14 LolaWalser: Yeah, you're probably right. And, yes, I think Didion is still alive. I hope she has changed her thinking somewhat from this radical stance.

When I read this Didion essay, I recalled certain discussions on FB where people have made comments exactly like that -- not on my timeline and they've been friends of friends, so I just read and move on. But this mindset is still out there.

>15 jennybhatt:

Oh--I would say that's the DOMINANT mindset.

I wish I could say something more useful about that essay, it's more than those two paragraphs, but I feel too ignorant and confused. Doesn't help that is seems to be a transcription with some errors--the very first sentence and paragraph seem mangled and/or very poorly written:

To make an omelette you need not only those broken eggs but
someone "oppressed" to beat them: every revolutionist is
presumed to understand that, and also every women, with either does or
does not make 51 per cent of the population of the United States a
potentially revolutionary class. The creation of this revolutionary class
was from the virtual beginning the "idea" of the women's movement,
and the tendency for popular discussion of the movement still to center
around daycare centers is yet another instance of that studied resistance
to the possibility of political ideas which characterizes our national life.

As far as I can tell Didion sneers at all of it--Marxism, ideology, "class", "revolution" but also dishwashing etc. and her attack has a double thrust--against the "curious historical anomaly" (lol) of the "women's movement" as a Marxist event, and against such mundane concerns as contraception, rape, sexual harassment, equal pay...

>16 LolaWalser: She does sneer at it all, you're right. Funny thing is, she was living in Hollywood at the time. Right in the middle of liberal southern California (which she also made fun of in a different essay in this book by dismissing their talk as movie one-liners) with the ongoing hippie movement. And at a time when there was also a lot of racial tension. The more I think about the world she lived in and the people she was surrounded by, the more I am astounded that she held such a worldview about feminism.

I have met people sounding like that in "liberal" America, quite a few actually. Privilege colours them above everything else, and nothing annoys them more than any suggestion that they didn't wholly earn it or don't "naturally" deserve it.

There's a sense of unease and weird gaucheness--maybe you were right in suggesting she was uninformed--in her handling of political concepts. I think that's the root of my confusion with this essay and why it sounds so bizarre to me. I don't trust, for example, that she knew anything about Marxism, or she couldn't say that Madame Bovary explains the bourgeoisie better than Marx, contains everything one could want to know about it. (Not Even Wrong: where does one even begin...)

For her--and again, this is something I've come across many times before--"bourgeois" and "bourgeoisie" isn't so much a Marxist class reference as a synonym for unhip, uncool, square.

Maybe she just wanted to convey the vastness of her contempt, stating in the beginning ("In fact there was an idea, and the idea was Marxist, and it was precisely to the extent that there was this Marxist idea that the curious historical anomaly known as the women's movement would have seemed to have any interest at all.") that feminism is only interesting insofar it was Marxist--and then terminally rubbishing Marxism by saying Madame Bovary does its job far better. In any case it doesn't make me trust her powers as a political analyst.

Yeah, that whole linking of Marxism to feminism -- at least in the way that she did -- was confusing as heck to me too.

I haven't read her other work to know whether her political analysis grew less confusing. But she has been lionized so much for so long. She still has so many readers. The tone-deafness must have, surely, lessened over time. I'll try to read some of her more recent stuff at some point soon just for my own curiosity about this.

I'm not surprised she's popular, the US is a deeply conservative and reactionary culture.

This is kinda funny. A new interview with Claudia Rankine where she mentions Joan Didion in passing.

http://lithub.com/claudia-rankine-i-think-we-need-to-be-frightened/

"Joan Didion is somebody else who—I don’t feel like I share an understanding of the world with her, I think that Joan Didion has great privilege. I’m reading The Year of Magical Thinking and it’s like, “oh and then I asked my friend to fly me to”—and I’m like, huh? Excuse me? But there is that sense of the self and our political structure and the people we know all being one thing, inside the work, and so I spend a lot of time studying her work."

That's how I was feeling too, particularly about this essay.

Oh, this Rankine interview is excellent, by the way. I need to read her work.

>21 jennybhatt: I'm grateful to you for pointing out this essay, which I took the liberty of reposting a few other places. Rankine is new to me, and I ordered Citizen from Amazon right after I read the interview. Remarkable woman, and I'm glad to make her acquaintance (so to speak).

I'd just written a a few paragraphs about the past (which I have sensibly deleted), but did want to say that in my own circles, in those long ago times, Didion was considered superficial, and sociopathic in her inability to empathize with the suffering that those born without her advantages might have. I would say that she is most like Ivanka, but smarter.

>22 Lyndatrue: Ha. I ordered Citizen: An American Lyric after reading that interview too. :) I knew about Rankine but hadn't gotten around to reading it. Looking forward to getting my book now.

I'm still making my way through Didion's essays because I still want to understand that mindset. Also, I have to admit that her prose is clear, precise, and, in a literary sense only, the kind that inspires me.

You put it well because I have been thinking as I read, about how cold and clinical she was about whatever she was describing. She did have various psychiatric issues and she has written about them at length in other places, though only a little bit in this collection.

For example, I'm in the "Sojourns" section now, having managed to get through "The Women's Movement" section (she slaughtered Doris Lessing in one essay with biting, backhanded compliments that read more like insults but Georgia O'Keefe came out looking good.)

In the essay about her time spent in Hawaii (titled "In the Islands"), she begins by telling us what her overall mood is -- a vacation with family in lieu of getting a divorce. So she sets the stage for a weird sort of mood. Then, she goes on to describe, among other things, how soldiers' dead bodies are being shipped over from Vietnam to be buried in Hawaii. How the families fly in from other states for the burial. She attends one and I was stunned with how detached she is through the entire description. It's like reading a screenplay with directions for the setting and characters and nothing much beyond that.

I think Didion is/was one of those nonfiction writers with whom we get more of a sense of Didion than we do of her subjects and themes. Didion is/was Didion's greatest subject.

Citizen is one of the best books I've ever read. I'd also recommend trying the audio version, if you have the option, because the cadence and nuance of how we speak to each other is fundamental to the book.

>24 southernbooklady: Thanks. I'll try the audio option too -- good point re. cadence and nuance.

The Citizen links above are going to John Stewart's book.

>26 susanbooks: Mine (in >22 Lyndatrue:) goes to the correct work (and touchstones are BROKEN; it was a lot of work to get to it). The others (except, of course, for yours) do go to the wrong work. I do want to gently point out that it's "Jon Stewart" without the "H" (easy mistake to make).

Fixed, sorry

I fixed my link too. Apologies.

I think we touched on this study in one of these feminist theory threads last year -- how literary reviews are gender-biased in terms of topics covered as well as how they're covered (language used, etc.)

Now, there's a whole website on the project.

Here's the article: http://publications.mcgill.ca/reporter/2017/04/using-artificial-intelligence-to-...

And here's the website: https://justreview.org/our-research/

I went through the latter briefly and will take some more time over it in the coming days. They've shared more about their study of the 10,000 book reviews from the NYT from 2004-2014. Also, they have a gender bias tracker tool for literary publications

This review of another Didion book, South and West: From a Notebook does a pretty balanced job of explaining why she appeals and revolts. I found myself nodding several times through it, especially the part about how Didion's writer persona is probably a carefully-honed and manufactured one. Doesn't mean she's faking her elitism and misguided ideologies but that she is very particular about how she flaunts them.

http://www.themillions.com/2017/05/prescient-and-precious-on-joan-didion.html

but this is just the best:

Oskar Fischinger’s musical animations come to life in Google Doodle sequencer

I already skipped lunch to play with it and, well, it's only getting more addictive...!!!! *calculating hours to last bus*

Aw, so cute:

Teenage boys wear skirts to school to protest against 'no shorts' policy

It never made sense to me that women can wear trousers AND skirts but men can't. Or use makeup for that matter.

Omg, wait, it's happening all over... so global warming may be good for one thing at least:

Overheated French male bus drivers don skirts in defiance of dress code

Yes!

Rebecca Solnit: If I were a man

To be honest, there isn't anything new here -- the piece meanders through trope after trope. But in reading it I realized that I must be of her era, maybe a decade later -- girls were wearing pants by the time I started going to school, but I was in a Catholic school, so we didn't. Otherwise, it's all familiar:

What would it feel like to have a success that does not in any way contain failure, that is not awkward or grounds for apology, something that you don’t need to downplay, to have power that enhances rather than detracts from your attractiveness?

I don't really know.

Women translating women

In order to publish more women, especially in translation, we have to read more responsibly, publish more responsibly, and remind ourselves over and over that aesthetic value is not objective. Our tastes have been historically reinforced—by syllabi, by the canon—and history has until recently barred women from getting an education, pressured them into filling specific gender roles, etc. We all know this, but sometimes we forget that this value-assignation takes place within a specific sociohistoric context. Oh, and treat women’s writing as writing, full stop.

Ta-Nehisi Coates on Trump:

The First White President

>38 LolaWalser: Wow, that was powerful and rings true to my experience talking with the few people I know who voted for the man. But it's frustrating, because people who are convinced there is racism against white people will never allow themselves to see the truth in what Coates lays out here. When your identity and worldview depends on a falsehood, you'll do anything to hold on to that falsehood as true. And it's self perpetuating because people teach that falsehood to their children.

Well, I don't know how you manage. I just... I have no words, I can't take that sort of crap anymore, indulge it like it's something worthy of argument. They can all drop dead right this minute, every single one of them.

There's a horrendous romance novel article in the NYT, written by a man, dripping with disdain for women and the largest genre in publishing:

A Roundup of the Season’s Romance Novels

"{Nora} Roberts is not only extraordinarily industrious — 215 or so novels, including 45 futuristic police procedurals under the pseudonym J. D. Robb, also big best sellers — but her books are sensibly written and on the whole as plausible as genre novels can be. I remember being struck some years ago by her common sense about what women want, need and deserve."

"Its {the romance genre's} readership is vast, its satisfactions apparently limitless, its profitability incontestable. And its effect? Harmless, I would imagine. Why shouldn’t women dream? After all, guys have their James Bonds as role models. Are fantasies of violence and danger really more respectable than fantasies of courtship and female self-empowerment?"

Hm, frankly, personally I don't detect anything like disdain in that article. It's humorous but to me it reads favourable to the genre. Plus it's literally framed to sell those books, what with the covers and prices and exact title and author references.

(I'd only question the idea that "female self-empowerment" is what romance, heterosexual anyway, is ever about. But then I am deeply hostile to the genre's formula and no doubt not the best person to judge its putative merits.)

>42 LolaWalser: The author of the article is surprised that Nora Roberts understands what women want and need and deserve.

The romance genre has a completely undeserved bad reputation because it is made for women by women, and thus people dismiss it as frivolous. Most romance novels written in the past two decades are precisely about female self-empowerment, and at least some of them have been about female self-empowerment since the dawn of novels. Author Courtney Milan tweeted in response to the NYT article about a romance novel she read, Her World Against a Lie, published in 1879, which contained a detailed description of how to legally escape an abusive husband.

The problem is not that the author of the article is unique in thinking so poorly about romance novels, the problem is why on earth the NYT would let someone with disdain for the genre write an article about it, when they could have gotten someone who enjoys the genre, or someone of the gender for which and by whom romance novels are written.

>43 norabelle414:

a romance novel she read, Her World Against a Lie, published in 1879, which contained a detailed description of how to legally escape an abusive husband.

But I bet that wasn't written to Harlequin's specifics for one of their romance-by-numbers series. I suppose one must first define the terms, and the writer of the article is clearly writing about the titles published to formula of contemporary commercial genre of romance, not about everything in literature that can be labelled as romance. I take the point that even the commercial genre has evolved (protagonists in their late sixties? Revolutionary.) but it doesn't make them same as Austen.

Can't speak to literary quality. If it's anything like what I read back when I read some, or Twilight (most recent romance I at least leafed through), well... that's not the aspect I could ever choose to defend. Actually, I would "defend" the genre (if it's not too presumptuous for a non-fan to do so) for its emotional value to its readers and nothing else--what else matters anyway? Formulaic books sell for their formula, not style and invention. I don't mean that the latter aren't appreciated, where they exist, but they don't seem to make or break a commercial pulp novel (in any genre).

I am most definitely NOT mourning Hugh Hefner today. Cue all the news profiles about what he contributed to our culture. Bleargh. I guess they got it for the articles.

I think there's credit to be given to the man for some things (e.g. stances on civil rights, Vietnam etc.) Regarding women, it seems whatever liberty he championed for them was ultimately simply to benefit men.

Playboy did have brilliant journalism, it was one of the magazines I read regularly when I first moved to the US. It always struck me as laughable it was considered pornographic, but I was thoroughly jaded* about naked women in political mags (or any public space and surface, really) by European practice. Not an issue without tits and ass et al. somewhere, most often already on the cover, in some special cases as the double-page insert, and without the justification of Playboy-like statement of mission.

They also gave a lot of room to first class illustrators and designers, that was a trip.

But I haven't seen an issue since the nineties. It's a wonder they survived this long. Hefner always looked as if he'd been fossilized and pickled in centuries past. So retro it went camp... and then merely corny.

*also young and even more ignorant than now

I've been quiet here lately because work keeps me very busy this time of year, but I at last have a few free moments.

No feelings about Hefner beyond a general icky feeling, although I concur that Playboy did have high quality journalism. Learning to swallow (pun intended) the good with the bad -- the unapologetic, celebrated sexism and objectification -- is surely par for the course for any woman who grew up in the era. Nor can I say things have really changed much on that score. If anything, I kind of see the admiration for Hefner and the admiration for Trump as variations on the same theme. It's all about maleness, first and foremost.

In other news, I thought I'd post this here, because I'm not interested in fielding pointless sniping on Pro/Con, and there is a feminist viewpoint to what she says:

I am drowning in whiteness

the only part of the white perspective I'm missing is the ability to be unaware of the white perspective.

>47 southernbooklady: It's early for me, but I still thank you for posting the link, even though it just adds to the pain of the past few days. It reminds me of a line from Ntozake Shange: "I couldn't stand being sorry and colored at the same time. It's so redundant in the modern world."

I wept the first time I saw the performance, and it still brings on the pain...as did "I am drowning in whiteness." I won't forget you, Ijeoma Oluo.

the admiration for Hefner and the admiration for Trump as variations on the same theme

Totally. Trump is the stinking culmination of the mindset that idolised a pig like Hefner and his notions of good life ("for men" or however the tag goes). But try running that one by the liberal comrades who want their "real boy" street cred affirmed. (parrot's voice: it's claaaaaasss, claaaaaaaasssss, CLAAAAASSSSSSSS, not gender! Shriiiiiek, identity politics, identity politics...!)

all of the thousands of cuts that people of color endure every single day in white supremacist society

Mm, this. Racist or sexist, that non-stop lashing of "thousand cuts" is so dispiriting, so tough to endure AND to explain, especially to those who stubbornly refuse to consider anything that's not declarative, in-your-face, KKK-robe-wearing, actual face-punching. Daily torture.

Needed something quick off the shelves and found The Practical Princess to re-read. Aimed at younger readers, I would have had this new at 11 - which is top end of its target audience. Its 6 short stories that take the fairytale style and give it a twist. No damsels placidly letting fate do its thing, they all take a hand in their future. I can see where some of my ideas came from...
Wonder if it's still in print, perfect mildly eccentric Auntie material!

#50

I picked that up recently (second hand), looked very likeable.

In the "something completely different" vein... David Neiwert's Alt-America: The Rise of the Radical Right in the Age of Trump is 40% off until tomorrow (Tuesday) midnight.

https://www.versobooks.com/blogs/3450-alt-america-the-rise-of-the-radical-right-...

Also interesting, Neiwert's recommendations for further reading:

Five Book Plan: The Radical Right in America

Contestants in a beauty pageant in Peru refuse to disclose their breast, waist and hip measurements and instead cite statistics on violence against women (Democracy Now video, starts at the segment):

My figures are...

Congrats, Alabama, all is not lost.

>53 LolaWalser: Yeah. Jones won by something like 20,000 votes. Woo hoo.

Let's hope the Democrats learn something from this election. Apparently, what won that election for Jones was grassroots get out the vote efforts in black communities paid for by national Democrat party contributions. And the effort to disenfranchise black voters in Alabama is tremendous, even worse than in NC. What Democrats need to realize is that they need to stop trying to flip the white working class vote and focus on their real base and put real money into these elections.

>54 southernbooklady:

And, recalling the demographics of Trump's win, 73% or so of white Alabaman men and 65% or so of white Alabaman women are utter shits.

(x-post with >55 sturlington:)

I think this Twitter thread by Bree Newsome about the election is awesome: https://twitter.com/BreeNewsome/status/940932420416737281

>56 LolaWalser: Interesting datum on the white women who voted for Moore and Jones.

A very interesting piece of data from Alabama exit polls: While White women overall voted for Moore 63 to 34, when you break out evangelical vs non you get evangelical white women 76 - 22 Moore; non-evangelical white women 74 - 21 Jones!

— Matthew Dowd (@matthewjdowd) December 13, 2017

>58 sturlington: 64% of white evangelical protestants also don't believe in evolution. Their ability to deny reality is a well-honed skill.

Pertinent to this discussion: " “A sizable minority of American women,” note Huddy and Willmann, “do not believe in the existence of gender discrimination, think that women who charge men with gender discrimination are trouble makers, and are inclined to side with a man accused of discriminatory behavior.” And Hillary Clinton’s presidential candidacy seems to have made these women more staunchly Republican." https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/12/the-partisanship-of-feminis...

>60 sturlington: that's not exactly a surprise. the more invested you are in a system, the more likely you are to resist criticism of it. and if you are so invested, then indeed any challengers become "troublemakers."

>61 southernbooklady: Our patriarchal system itself traps women into these attitudes. For many women, the most viable option of self-support is to tie themselves to a man in the traditional manner (i.e., marriage), and threatening that system threatens their own sustainability, since we have failed to construct real alternatives to the traditional hierarchy.

I thought I would post this as a bit of levity. Best break-up ever? (From Twitter)

Victoria and I were in line at Starbucks and witnessed a break up that was amazing.

Guy: I don't understand why people are mad Wonder Woman wasn't nominated. It was just some model fighting in a swimsuit.

Girl: I'm done with you.

Guy: What?

Girl: Fuck off, Dan. *leaves*

— 🌈Mary🌈 (@sapphicgeek) January 8, 2018

Not to ruin >63 sturlington:'s moment of levity, but, well, here's a bit of news that is making waves on my facebook feed:

Lesbian Feminist Restaurant accused of transphobia

I have some pretty personal feelings about it all -- The Bloodroot Vegetarian Restaurant was an important part of my coming out, and my early radical feminist community. I knew Selma and Noel a long time ago, and indeed I eventually lost my very first lover to a woman who worked at the restaurant as their bread baker. And I love their food, still to this day use very tattered copies of their cookbooks (it's hard to find replacements), and a fair number of my go-to favorite dishes have their original inspiration in Bloodroot recipes.

All of which is to say, Bloodroot was a place of inspiration and joy to me at a time when I really needed some support in making sense of my life.

That said, I find I can easily imagine a conversation like the one reported-- "We strongly believe in supporting only women born women* here" although I have a harder time envisioning the rest: "We are disgusted by men who think they can put on dresses and nail polish and pump themselves up with nail polish and pump themselves with chemicals and say they are women. They just aren’t. and we will never support them.'" I've been on the periphery and sometimes in the trenches of the women-only-space fights and I'll tell you, usually there was no room for transwomen perspectives in most of the arguments.

Of course, that was twenty years ago. I would hope that when it comes to gender, some of those old radical feminists have evolved a bit in their thinking.

*women born women? Isn't one of the attributes of gender dysphoria that the gender you are born with does not match your biology?

>64 southernbooklady:

I gather the owners say their remarks were misunderstood. Seems to me they deserve the benefit of the doubt. I didn't see any claims that they've ever refused service to someone on the ground of gender.

I would hope that when it comes to gender, some of those old radical feminists have evolved a bit in their thinking.

Not to go ageist in my turn (we are all ageing all the time and I don't exempt myself from these suspicions), but I think it's generally true for most older people that they simply can't follow new developments 100%. Look at that moronic anti-MeToo statement in France, signed by Deneuve and a bunch of other women--practically all old or older and/or conservative; look at the demographics of votes for pigs like Trump etc.

And while one might hope that people active in political and ideological battles all their lifetimes would be used to changing arguments, enriching debates and so on, and maybe be more flexible, more receptive to new ideas... that doesn't necessarily follow, does it? They might just as easily be stuck in the original positions because they've spent a lifetime fighting for them.

>65 LolaWalser: I gather the owners say their remarks were misunderstood. Seems to me they deserve the benefit of the doubt.

Plus, it is impossible to get a real understanding of context in a facebook dust-up. It's all she-said, she-said. It does sort of underscore for me though that acceptance of the entire range of gender identity is a necessary step in creating a fully open and unprejudiced society. I find myself wondering what Mary Daly would have done if a trans woman wanted to take one of her women-only classes. I have a sneaking suspicion Daly would have refused, although of course I can't say for certain. But bound up in all that radical feminist rhetoric I lived and breathed back in the day was the assumption that "woman" was not just biology, but what you were forced to endure from patriarchy because of your biology. It was a strangely limited understanding of gender from a philosophy that sought to be woman-centric.

They might just as easily be stuck in the original positions because they've spent a lifetime fighting for them.

What does come across for me, though, is how quick everyone is to circle the wagons around their own "side" instead of creating an opportunity for some kind of discussion. We are all far more invested in being right than in being understood or willing to understand others. And frankly, I think the freedom we have to post nasty things in the comments in the name of anger really just appeals to the uglier, more self-indulgent side of our nature.

But bound up in all that radical feminist rhetoric I lived and breathed back in the day was the assumption that "woman" was not just biology, but what you were forced to endure from patriarchy because of your biology.

That's The Second Sex (1946) in a nutshell: "one isn't born a woman, one becomes a woman." Geez, everyone should be reading Beauvoir today still. :)

an opportunity for some kind of discussion

Can you explain to me what's the anti-trans-inclusion argument anyway? Is there one? I have only piecemeal impressions of various grievances--in one example the possible presence of penises in women-only environments, in another habits derived from male privilege, in yet another criticism of men interpreting femininity as costume etc.

>67 LolaWalser: Can you explain to me what's the anti-trans-inclusion argument anyway? Is there one?

I don't think there's a coherent one. I think when it shows up it is an instinctive rejection of the notion that what we've always taken for granted as "woman" is somehow wrong or incomplete.

More pruriently, yes, I think it is all about the possible penis and male privilege in the room. It's about who gets to be an "authentic" woman and I think that's a bad bad road to go down.

I vaguely remember the penis thing related to the Michigan festival (or something similar)--IIRC, there were occasions when lots of collective nudity could be expected, and/or some women liked to walk around nude and/or it was about bathing/restroom situations... it seems there are various worries involved, from the sheer fright that men, cis and straight, could maliciously crash the party, to that of causing discomfort and triggers.

To be frank--and I say this as a woman who's only ever been on very friendly terms with penises that came up close and personal--I can't help feeling there's something to that worry about causing discomfort and/or worse to some women. The solution would seem to be banning nudity altogether--but then that, as I understand, would have changed greatly the atmosphere and camaraderie of these gatherings, where the safety of exercising such liberties, unimaginable in the outside world, was one of their cherished aspects.

>69 LolaWalser: I can't help feeling there's something to that worry about causing discomfort and/or worse to some women.

Heh. I've had my share of days sitting nekkid around the drum circle at Michigan. I also remember that when the company came to clean out the port-a-janes, they were always heralded by an advance guard of women yelling "Men on the land! Men on the land!" so everyone could get out of their way or dive into their tents.

The thing about Michigan and nudity, though, was less, I think about malicious men crashing the party -- the security was pretty tight, from what I remember. It was about being able to exist in your female body and yet be free from being a sex object. The assumption was (and maybe is?) that a man can't see a naked female body without thinking first and foremost of how suitable she is for sex.

I have known a few gay men with whom I have had long interesting conversations, and after a weird beginning of feeling that something was off-kilter, there was a sudden feeling of suddenly being free. That I could talk to a man without sex in the background. It's not just naked bodies, and it's not just the men. It's an undercurrent of awareness of sex as a possibility, whether or not we are interested, disgusted, or whatever by that possibility.

-------

I think there is a problem keeping two classes of people separate. Transwomen are people born with male bodies who feel that they should have been born with female bodies, and whether or not they go through surgery, want to live as themselves.

But there are also men who crossdress in a sort of competitive way. When they dress as women they lay great value on being the ideal sexy woman. Perfect make-up, high heels, ... Yes, I have heard someone say that he thought he was 'better' at being a woman than most women because he could do these things well, and most women can't. I recently read a book by a cross dresser like this who spent much of his public time as a 'woman' but went to work as a man, and the only housework mentioned in the whole book was his wife making dinner. I don't wear makeup - it sets my face to itching within minutes, even the sensitive skin types. I don't wear high heels. I did have a pair once, but I have always been prone to twisted ankles, even when wearing flat, tie-up shoes, so even when I owned them, they sat in the back of the closet, never worn. My experience of being a woman is built around three pregnancies, cooking for four males and myself, being the housekeeper for all of us, growing a garden and processing the harvest, doing needlework (and passing some of those skills on to my sons). Most of my life as a woman has not been about being sexy.

>71 MarthaJeanne: I have met a few transgender people and they have left me feeling that they are trying too hard to be a woman. That is the best way I can put it. So one I have met was in their 40s and was wearing an outfit that would have better graced an 18 year old in a nightclub than a mid 40s woman in a low key social situation. Put it this way, none of the other ladies in the company were in anything other than jeans. They are practical; a mini skirt and heels are not.

I find myself wanting to ask a whole load of probably inappropriate questions. Do they retain their strength? Men are typically more muscular, does that remain? (not entirely random, I participate in a hobby where physical strength does make a difference to what you can do - and that is the situation I have encountered people I know to be transgender). And so on...

I know we hear of men transitioning to female, is that more common than the opposite change? Seems that is something I've not heard anything of.

>72 Helenliz:

There's a big aspect of how old people were when they transitioned. If people transition later in life, after having gone through puberty as the sex they were assigned at birth, then effectively they're going through puberty again at thirty or even older, with all the hormonal issues that implies. They also have that much "catching up" of getting to freely exist as a woman (or as a man, in the case of trans men). Both are less pronounced when, as is increasingly common, trans people are able to transition much earlier in life than was previously the case.

Would your disapproval be quite so strong if a single cis woman dressed up to that extent? Would you generalize your disapproval to all cis women, everywhere? Have you stopped to think that maybe you've encountered plenty of trans women who you didn't notice because they weren't performing femininity quite so strongly?

I have never heard it suggested that trans women are more common than trans men. Transphobes complain more about trans women, to be sure (largely because straight cis men are terrified they may be attracted to someone who once had, or may still have a penis). And trans men are often far less recognizable as trans; facial hair and male-pattern baldness are fairly strong gender cues, and few people will look for or care about short stature and delicate facial features. (I personally know more FTM than MTF people (who I know to be trans, that is), but it's small numbers.)

Yes, Male to female is much more common than female to male. I know I have read that, but don't really understand it.

I did hear an interview with a transman on BBC a long time ago (about 20 years). He was very upset that he couldn't get his birth certificate changed to read 'male'. He was asked if a birth certificate reading 'female' had ever stopped him from doing something he wanted to do. Yes, at one time he had thought he might want to become a CofE priest, and the bishop had turned him down because of the birth certificate. My thought at the time was that this guy had lots of issues, and the bishop was probably very happy to have an objective reason for not moving further. By the time of the interview women could be ordained, but he was no longer interested.

The only transperson I have knowingly met was a weird situation. My sister and a friend were having a lawn sale. The friend's husband had left her and was transitioning at the time, but their teenage children refused to have anything to do with their father as a woman. At the sale someone came around who my eyes kept switching between seeing as a man and seeing as a woman. Height was tall for a woman, dress was unisex - jeans and bulky shirt. Once I was introduced, it became clear that she was functioning as a he in a family situation. I suspect that it makes a lot of difference if someone starts taking hormones as a teenager or as the father of teenagers. But of course before the 90s this sort of therapy was much harder to access if it was available at all. It was probably a case of, 'Now I can finally do what I have always wanted.'

ETA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_dysphoria says:

It is estimated that about 0.005% to 0.014% of people assigned male at birth and 0.002% to 0.003% of people assigned female at birth would be diagnosed with gender dysphoria,disputed – discuss based on 2013 diagnostic criteria, though this is considered a modest underestimate.5 Research indicates people who transition in adulthood are up to three times more likely to be male assigned at birth, but that among people transitioning in childhood the sex ratio is close to 1:1.6

>73 lorax: It was dressing to stick out like a sore thumb. Maybe that's their thing and has nothing to do with transitioning. I don't disapprove of the idea of going through that much upheaval to live your life the way you feel you should. Yes I may have known trans people who don't stick out. Good luck to them. The few I do know of have the same tendency. It strikes me as being similar to the competitive cross dressing described in >71 MarthaJeanne:.

>75 Helenliz:

From what I gather, cross-dressing is a separate phenomenon that apparently involves mostly cis-men (also mostly straight). A trans-woman wouldn't be cross-dressing when she dresses as a woman.

As to the style of appearance, I think contemporary societal interpretations and expectations of gender roles are reflected to a degree in personal choices--for example, the newest generations of trans-people seem to present in a wider variety of styles than those older who transitioned in, say, the seventies.

The more rigid and narrow the notions of what a "real woman" looks like and does, the greater the effort necessary to demonstrate adherence to these notions and therefore belonging to the category.

>72 Helenliz: I know we hear of men transitioning to female, is that more common than the opposite change?

Maggie Nelson's The Argonauts is, among other things, an account of her relationship with her husband, who is transitioning from female to male. When people talk about his "journey" he says something like "I'm not going anywhere. I'm right here."

That is, it is a process not so much of changing from one thing to another, but of becoming what he already was. It is an amazing and wonderful book.

I suppose that's what sticks for me about transgender -- ultimately it isn't about the clothes, or the breasts, or the penis. It's a realization and actualization of the self. Who am I to say to such a person "you're not a 'real' woman"? or "your concept of what a woman is -- it's wrong"?

As far I understand it, I think the hyperfeminity of some transwomen may have to do with issues of "passing". Someone who was raised male and transitioned after puberty may not automatically "read" as female to everyone around her (and there may be resistance from pretransition friends and acquaintances) so extreme emphasis of the outwardly gendered aspects of the new identity is a way of asserting herself as being not male. Whereas people born with female genitalia and raised female don't (generally) have to actively fight for acceptance of their identity the same way.
In any case, similar phenomena are not unusual elsewhere in society (immigrants who become more stereotypically American than most native-born Americans, converts to Judaism or Islam who adopt stricter and more visible religious practices than people from Jewish or Muslim families).

I'm not entirely up on the current discourses around the distinctions between transsexual, nonbinary, genderqueer, etc. However, I have a suspicion that the rigidity of binary gender roles is a factor in the existence of the phenomenon of people being transgender in the first place. What I mean is, someone whose gender identity falls closer to the middle of the spectrum may encounter less dissonance regarding the mismatch between their physical characteristics and their gender identity than someone whose gender identity falls at the extreme end of the spectrum. In some ways women have a wider range of options about gender expression than men (it's mostly OK for a woman to be a tomboy, but a man who happens to like skirts and high heels can't wear them without making a statement). So perhaps the dissonance encountered by transwomen is greater than for transmen.
Obviously for some people the physical mismatch (genitalia, hormones, secondary sexual characteristics) is in itself a source of distress, but I can't help wondering whether, if we had a society in which we were less obsessed with physiological characteristics as markers of specific gender identities, whether more transgender people wouldn't feel it necessary to undergo hormone therapy at all. How much of it is a societal problem and how much is it a problem of being born in the wrong body? I don't know.

>78 spiphany: You've said a lot of what I was going to say so I'll leave that out. Especially the part about gender expression in women.

I do think, in general but also this specifically that we need to add intersectionality to discussions/thoughts/beliefs about gender. Because there is a portion of gender identity that is how society sees us and there is a portion of gender identity that is self-expression. And in my formative years I was seen as woman and raised as woman and I'm ok with that (that's about where I'd self-define, "yeah ok sure fine woman I'm not going to fight you even if I find that limiting") but transwomen may or may not have been raised as women and even if they were society probably didn't see them as women. How many of us are defined in womb? I certainly remember the extreme frustration/anger I felt seeing a sonogram someone had photo-shopped a bow onto. I will never know what it is like to not be seen as a woman and transwomen may forever be worried about others not seeing them as a woman. Add in race and the picture gets more complicated and significantly more depressing.

I guess writing this out I'm still not sure if I want to define intersectionality as adding in different qualities women who are not white cisgender deal with or if I want to define it as a way to broaden the very definition of what a woman is.... I'd like to broaden the term woman and I think I've done that in my own beliefs but at the same time the differences that make it harder for non-white, trans, disabled women to live their lives is important.

My husband pointed this out to me: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=51-hepLP8J4

It is a sketch showing female officers questioning a man who was mugged.

It seems there's a debate raging in the US about the pink pussy hats that became the symbol of the Women's March last year: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2018/01/10/pink-pussyhats-why-som...
The debate picks up a lot of the issues that we've just been discussing here (intersectionality, who "counts" as being a woman, genitalia vs. gender identity, etc.). I have very mixed feelings reading this. The divisiveness is incredibly depressing and I feel like the arguments being levelled against the hats (i.e., that the hats represent female genitalia and not all women have vulvas or vulvas that are pink) are rather missing the point (the hats are supposed to be cat ears in a play on the pussy=cat association, and the pink is reclaiming what is devalued as a "women's color", and it also happens to be incredibly effective visually). At the same time, the failure to sufficiently include women of color and transwomen in the movement is probably a valid criticism in many cases. And as a white and more-or-less cis-gender woman it isn't my place to decide whether the hats are offensive or not. I do wonder whether some of the poisonous infighting could be avoided by reframing the symbol a bit -- say, simply as "pink protest hats" rather than "pussy hats".

Well, colour me unaware. I didn't know about this debate, or that there was a pussyhat movement organised to the point someone could be excluded from it. When I went to the march here in Toronto (in a group of three women and as it happens none wore special "pussyhats" although my friend's cap was pink), the crowd, as far as I saw, was quite diverse (not a few men, either). Somebody organised the meeting, chose a time and place and advertised it, but from the point of view of us who just showed up--well, we showed up. I didn't spare a moment to think about the gender/racial/etc. composition of the organisers, if that's the level where exclusion occurs.

I thought the pink colour had its usual symbolic meaning--the one that's usually forced on girls and women regardless of choice, at the same time as it's forbidden to boys and men--not that it meant to represent literally the colour of genitalia.

Regarding transwomen, I'm not sure what to say. The pussyhats are symbols. You don't have to have a pussy to wear one (know this for a fact, as I saw several entirely male-looking people with them. Didn't ask them about gender, just appreciated they were there as were we all.), the same as I don't have to have a child or plan to be a parent in order to pay school taxes and support organisations with names such as "Planned parenthood".

It's like those signs on restrooms. The "woman" usually wears a dress and has long hair. No one sane would assume only women with long hair who happen to wear dresses that day are allowed to enter.

>81 spiphany: The divisiveness is incredibly depressing and I feel like the arguments being levelled against the hats (i.e., that the hats represent female genitalia and not all women have vulvas or vulvas that are pink) are rather missing the point

One of the points -- in fact, I'd say the main point -- of using "pussy" was as a direct response to Trump's "grab them by the pussy" comment.

>83 southernbooklady: Absolutely, but the hats weren't meant to visually resemble labias or vulvas -- unless there are women whose genital regions are fluorescent pink and have the shape of impressionistic cat ears -- so this specific part of the outrage is a bit confusing to me. I had (perhaps rather naively) understood the "pussy grabs back" in a more general symbolic sense, the outrage about the fact that someone could so casually remark that there's nothing wrong with grabbing people in intimate places. And the reality is that we live in a society where people with penises are more likely to be the ones who feel they have a right to do the grabbing, and people with vaginas are often the ones subject to such unwanted attentions. So I also saw it as reframing certain ideas of feminity as meaning passive, cuddly creatures that can be owned (hence the condescending "pussy" nickname) and saying, if we're going to be compared with cats, well, cats are independent beings with claws who are capable of defending themselves against unwanted attentions.

Of course this does very much foreground women of a certain type (I would argue that when T made his comment, he probably really had in mind white, attractive cis women of certain socioeconomic classes -- I highly doubt T would consider women of color or disabled or poor women "worthy" of his inappropriate sexual attentions) and I can see how the symbolism is problematic because it works very much within mainstream, stereotyped, cis- and heteronormative discourses about women. The difficulty is, this is probably also part of what made it effective, because it could speak to a wide spectrum of people: T wasn't being callous towards a marginal group where people could think, that's unkind and unfortunate but it doesn't affect me; he was, broadly speaking, justifying a type of behavior that should have violated the norms held by well over half the population (women of all stripes, as well as those men who respect women and believe in consent).

I haven't lived in the US for over half a decade, so I don't know how these dynamics played out at the protests. I can imagine the fact that white cis-women were suddenly becoming activists and being proud of themselves for it would be offensive to women of more marginalized groups who have not felt supported by white women in their struggles in the past (i.e., privileged white women only getting involved when the discrimination was directed at them). I gather there has been a certain amount of behavior by white women insisting on running the show and silencing the voices of women of color.

I don't know how much of the problem is the symbol itself and how much is really the dynamics surrounding what people have been doing with it. Would it be less problematic if white women were actively doing more to listen and be inclusive? Or are certain groups who are going to feel excluded anyway simply because of the specific symbol chosen?

The infighting is upsetting either way, and the way it is playing out doesn't seem terribly productive for furthering anyone's cause.

>84 spiphany: he probably really had in mind white, attractive cis women

There's no "probably" about it. Stereotyped and heteronormative is exactly how Trump relates to women. A man who is so sexist, misogynistic, and narcissistic that he is basically a walking caricature will only treat women as stereotypes. He's incapable of doing otherwise. And frankly, patriarchal culture as a rule is still incapable of doing otherwise.

I suppose I still find the pussy hat movement challenges that global, systemic bad attitude women get from men. But when people say

The sentiment that the pink pussyhat excludes and is offensive to transgender women and gender non-binary people who don't have typical female genitalia and to women of color because their genitals are more likely to be brown than pink.

"I personally won’t wear one because if it hurts even a few people's feelings, then I don't feel like it’s unifying,"

I find myself wondering -- where's the rule that says pussyhats have to be pink? It's in the nature of symbols that they conform to our needs, we don't conform to them. If the symbol ceases to be inclusive, grow the symbol. That in itself invites dialogue and visibility instead of conformity and erasure.

I gather there has been a certain amount of behavior by white women insisting on running the show and silencing the voices of women of color.

Feminism is not a magic cure for racism. But then, neither is it a cure for any kind of tribalism. I can't resent people who get involved "when it affects them." Of course people are galvanized when something affects them. Instead, I find myself more concerned with how to convey the one truth that seems very relevant to me -- that when others are affected, so am I. That when a woman can't get a needed abortion, that affects my life because she is one of the people in my life. When a transgender person has to deal with harassment, abuse, prejudice, rape -- that affects me because they are part of my world.

So in that sense, the Women's March on Washington, and the pussyhats they all seemingly spontaneous donned as they marched -- it felt like one of the few real examples of an acknowledgement of "this affects everybody" I've ever seen. What was the tally? More than 3 million people just in the US (more than the popular vote Clinton won by). Thousands in countries across the globe? That's a huge statement of inclusiveness that I'd be sorry to see rejected as stereotyped and heteronormative.

>85 southernbooklady: I agree with you.

As far as the symbolism of the hats, I think I'm expressing myself badly. "Stereotyped" is too strong. What I mean is, I think one reason it worked so powerfully to motivate so many is because it draws on a number of things that are coded as feminine: for example, the color pink, the activity of knitting, and not least certain biological characteristics. (Cats might fit here as "coded feminine" as well.) The hat subverts these to some degree, but it also reclaims them. In both cases, it works because we know the code being referred to. ... But at the same time it seems like what is maybe happening with the pushback against this symbol, is that the same characteristics that made it inclusive are also resulting in some people feeling excluded. I don't know. I'm peering in from the outside on this one.

If the symbol ceases to be inclusive, grow the symbol. That in itself invites dialogue and visibility instead of conformity and erasure.
Yes, this, absolutely. Working together to find a mutually acceptable option rather than simply throwing out the symbol.

I'm putting this here because the same or at least related theme opened the thread, so they are grouped, more or less:

Poe, Updike, Roth, Mailer: many male authors have contributed to a culture in which the credibility of women is undermined. It’s time to put a stop to the gaslighting

...but it could be worth a separate thread, given it's a problem people keep coming back to. In short: how men have written (and, pointedly, not written) about women, for centuries, and how we have been taught to absorb their stories as "universal" and "true" (in a way that has no parallel for stories written by women)--taught to valorise their perspective, the perspective that buttresses the patriarchy.

I want to make clear immediately that for me personally, the problem isn't that men (or anyone) write biased, shitty, dick-obsessed stories--the problem is how we've been told and taught and actually conditioned to read them, praise them, prize them. It's time to recognise that everyone, white men included, only writes from a limited perspective, self-centred and yet fatally self-unaware.

This sort of thing should be made impossible--I mean the praise of, not the writing of (bolding mine):

“Please, Ramona,” Saul Bellow’s Herzog thinks, “you’re lovely, fragrant, sexual, good to touch – everything. But these lectures! For the love of God, Ramona, shut it up.” Her body is “everything”; her voice positively objectionable. Bellow won the Nobel prize for literature in 1976 for “the human understanding” in his work.

I can vouch that this is not cherry-picked--it was actually reading Saul Bellow, and only some 15-20 years ago, that made me see The Problem. You'll find the above attitude and variations on the statement everywhere in his work. The shock for me came from the question of how did Bellow picture his female friends, New York intellectuals and writers like himself, of which he knew many and presumably held in some regard, reading this. Knowing them, knowing that they'd pick up his books, read them, and that he'll run into them, that they'll continue to meet for parties and talks and work, how could he write about women like that.

The article brings up the possibility that these brutally objectifying depictions of women are more deliberate than we might have thought (bolding mine):

Just short of 250 years later, in Updike’s 2008 The Widows of Eastwick, a woman looks at two naked men and finds them “so beautiful and monstrous, these glossy erect pricks”, that she just “had to take them into her mouth”. At other times the widows sit around thinking about “their nether parts, hairy and odorous and for many Christian centuries unspeakable”, as you do. It is not unreasonable to judge all this a failure of imaginative, sympathetic, humanistic art – and it was a sequel to Updike’s The Witches of Eastwick (1984), which was, he said, “one attempt to make things right with my, what shall we call them, feminist detractors”. Those detractors were taking issue with books such as Rabbit Redux (1971), which describes a woman “liking it, being raped”. This particular line was so objectionable, even 45 years ago, that later editions made it more ambiguous, changing the line to “she is liking it, this attack”.

And, as blatant as can be:

Mailer’s response to his feminist detractors, meanwhile, was to double down. When Kate Millett called Mailer a “prisoner of the cult of virility”, he responded with The Prisoner of Sex (1970), in which he revealed that he once called his penis “The Avenger”, but had renamed it “Retaliator” – just another penis with a thesaurus. Mailer also declared that a man’s “sexual force” is “his finest moral product”. If this had all been ridiculed as the petty masculine panic it so patently was, it wouldn’t much matter. Instead, Anatole Broyard declared it Mailer’s “best book” in the New York Times, telling women it was “a love poem” to our sex. When cultural authorities tell us to confuse “retaliation” with “love” – that’s when it’s gaslighting.

She goes on to other examples and points and it's worth reading even if you've thought about this before; I don't want to make a long post even longer.

To end with a writer, J. M. Coetzee, who (I think) is a better human being than the others mentioned; at least, he has more vision and more courage:

Later, unexpectedly, Lurie finds himself trying to imagine the rape. “He can, if he concentrates, if he loses himself, be there, be the men, inhabit them, fill them with the ghost of himself. The question is, does he have it in him to be the woman?”

That's an excerpt from Disgrace, a painful, difficult book. Horrible things happen to women, which we see only filtered through a man. But that final question is worth it. That final question is what every man and male writer ought to be asking himself. Not, "do I have it in me to imagine what's it like to be a woman", but "do I have it in me to BE the woman"--this woman I'm writing, this woman I'm writing like this, "butternut ass", with "apertures", fuckable and idiotic, nothing-but-tits, raped and loving it and so on for centuries.

And not just them, but women in the news, women in the street, women in your family.

Then we'll talk about "human understanding".

>87 LolaWalser: Thank you for this. A while back, I had a project to read all of the Pulitzer Prize winners for fiction, but then I came against the period where Updike, Mailer, Bellow, and Roth all won, and I couldn't stomach it (Updike won twice!). So I changed my project to reading the women* and minority winners of the Pulitzer Prize winners for fiction, a much more gratifying project.

*Except for Gone With the Wind--sorry/not sorry.

Weirdly enough, I have somehow got through life without reading much Mailer, Bellow or Roth. I blame a particularly insecure high school English teacher, who wanted us to call him "Chucky" and was a huge fan of Freudian interpretation.The section we did on Portnoy's Complaint -- the only Roth I think I ever finished, because you know, grades -- well, it was excruciating. And icky.

That said, I admit to reading, and admiring, many books despite their unquestioning misogyny. And I've never delved too deeply into whatever schizophrenic talent I had that allowed me to both see the woman-hating, and still find literary or artistic value in the work. I mean, can any woman read noir or Hemingway without an Olympic-grade capacity for compartmentalization?

In the end, as I think I've mentioned on these fora before, I settled for a question Mary Daly once asked my feminism class about Shakespeare: "What does Shakespeare really have to say to women?"

"What does this have to say to women?" is a question I put to everything I read. The answer may indeed be "not a fucking thing," but if that is the case, that knowledge is at least up front an a visible part of whatever opinion I form about the book.

>88 sturlington:, >89 southernbooklady:

Shannon, you're welcome. For my part, I've read a lot of Roth and Updike (Updike's story collections made him a favourite writer in my mid-teens but his novels never grabbed me--thinking back it could have been the sexism that alienated me, unwittingly mostly), less by Bellow, but still about half a dozen books, and nothing by Mailer longer than an article, not completely anyway. I never finished The prisoner of sex--frankly the whole pamphlet is encapsulated in the bit quoted above--occasionally it occurs that The naked and the dead is a cultural signpost and I am interested in responses to war, but life's time's getting shorter and my book debts ever more numerous, so... At this point I wouldn't know what to say if someone asked me should they read these people, or what they could get out of them.

Portnoy's complaint I loved on reading the first time, in my earlyish twenties, when I still suffered from the ridiculous delusion that I, a woman, am welcome to identify with Portnoy and similar male author avatars. Re-reading it twenty years later, I was shocked to see how much I would have had to gloss over in order to feel 'I am Portnoy'--in particular the "sex as warfare" element, which couldn't be more foreign to my nature. On re-reading, Portnoy isn't a jolly bon vivant pursuing sex for (everybody's) pleasure, he's a maniac on a mission to build his self-esteem by demolishing women (specifically Gentile women--he's impotent with Jewish women, meaning that he can't even conceive of sex as a loving, affectionate transaction, between equals. When sex is a weapon, obviously it can only be used to punish an enemy.)

The Freudian interpretations are, I think, inevitable, and first of all because Roth all but spells out "Paging Dr. Freud" in neon on every page. It's not hidden--the whole book is a confession to the shrink. But I can only imagine what an ordeal it is to go through in class...

That said, I admit to reading, and admiring, many books despite their unquestioning misogyny. And I've never delved too deeply into whatever schizophrenic talent I had that allowed me to both see the woman-hating, and still find literary or artistic value in the work. I mean, can any woman read noir or Hemingway without an Olympic-grade capacity for compartmentalization?

I do wonder increasingly about this. Obviously I've read tons of misogynistic literature because that's what we do, what we are taught to do, what we are given to read and admire. ("We" of a certain age anyway.) A huge part of my internalised misogyny (which I still struggle with and don't expect ever to be rid of completely--and of course I will NEVER get back the years of my life that were distorted by it the worst) comes from this literary training.

But I do wonder more and more, what does it really mean, what you say? What's the point of "compartmentalization" when it comes to literature, how can one even do it? There are fundamental worldviews that colour everything one notices, sees, thinks. So maybe a racist or a misogynist can provide a fine description of an olive tree or an accurate report of a football match. That's fine if that's all we're looking for, but these grand "oeuvres" that get prized and Nobelised and Western-Canonised are asserting for themselves much more--truth-telling, authenticity, vitality, universal significance, universal value...

Remains the question of beauty, of aesthetic value. One can express the hatefulness of Dixon's Clansman and Hitler's Mein Kampf in pretty language. That is an indictment of the limits of language, and of sophistry that sells the worst ideas as less abominable if the style is sexy.

For me, only truth is beauty.

There is value in the works of racists and misogynists as expressions of character and history, of individualities and circumstances. But the frogs have to stop puffing themselves up--and we must stop blowing up their asses.

http://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-us-canada-43120177/do-male-strip-dancers-feel-o...

I liked this, and felt that the Chippendale dancer was very thoughtful about the difference between what he does and what females in similar jobs experience.

>90 LolaWalser: But I do wonder more and more, what does it really mean, what you say? What's the point of "compartmentalization" when it comes to literature, how can one even do it?

I think what it comes down to, when I wrestle with these ideas, is a question of relevancy. The more my understanding of feminism -- hell, of humanism -- evolves, the less relevant misogynistic art becomes. In the same way that many things we enjoyed as children are now simply childish (yes, I went through a unicorn phase), many of the things I liked as an unquestioning citizen of patriarchy are now simply...empty. Empty of meaning. Irrelevant to my life now.

So the compartmentalizing, is like a first sign that it may be time to re-evaluate how relevant the art is, and whether it is time to let it go. Or if not, why not? I think I hang on to a lot of those noir writers because of the way they celebrate the defiance of one man (sic) against a corrupt society. I tend to think of defiance as a virtue.

For me, only truth is beauty.

Amen.

>92 southernbooklady: What a great insight. Lately, I've been finding myself more mindful of what I read and questioning what I read. This speaks to mindfulness, being aware of how we are reacting to what we read and incorporating that into our own personal growth.

>92 southernbooklady:
>93 sturlington: So beautifully said, both of you! You're right, those points of view aren't just all the usual things we think they are (misogynistic, oppressive, etc), they're really just fucking irrelevant to understanding the world. I'm getting so much from following this conversation. Thank you so much, everyone, for sharing your thoughts.

The man who murdered ten people and injured more than a dozen yesterday in Toronto celebrated Elliot Rodger, the 2014 misogynist mass murderer in California, and invoked the "incel" ("involuntarily celibate") terminology and notions at least once on his Facebook page (currently inaccessible).

Who is Alek Minassian, the man accused in the van rampage?

Minassian’s last public post referenced U.S. mass murderer Elliot Rodger, who killed six people after recording a YouTube video vowing “revenge against humanity,” especially retribution towards women. (...)

“The Incel Rebellion has already begun!” Minassian said in his Facebook post, referencing an online community or movement of people* claiming to be involuntarily celibate. “All hail the Supreme Gentleman Elliot Rodger!”

*Pretty sure that in this case specifying "men" would have been entirely accurate.

>95 LolaWalser: Trigger warnings galore but here is a Twitter thread on this subject by a journalist who has been researching this terrorist movement for some time with some more resources on the subject.

>95 LolaWalser:
That's ... disturbing.

Apparently I've been living under a rock, because I had no idea that "involuntary celibacy" was a thing. This really bothers me for all sorts of visceral reasons.

The term of course implies an entitlement to sex which is problematic, and also that the person who is "involuntarily celibate" is somehow a victim, that others are responsible for preventing that person from having sex.

But there's a more subtle level at which this bothers me. Part of it may be that I'm not someone for whom sex has ever been particularly important. I get that it is for many people, but the term gives both "having sex regularly" and "wanting to have sex regularly" a certain normative force, and it makes "not having sex regularly" into an abherrent state of affairs that needs to be corrected. That way of looking at things makes me sad. I mean, humans spend most of our lives emphatically NOT having sex (as children, at work, while sleeping...) and even people who have reliable access to a willing sexual partner (whether in the form of a long-term relationship or otherwise) are going to have periods in which little or no sex takes place. That doesn't mean that such periods are somehow inherently inferior or deficient.

What bothers me about the 'incel' designation is the assumption that women should be having involuntary sex. If a man feels that he should have access to sex without regard to whether or not he is attractive to the women around him, well that sounds like rape to me.

>96 sturlington:

Wow--and Toronto-based too. Interesting. I don't know if it's my micro-environment, but for some time now I've been noticing how much more often I see men and groups of men together in the street, than women. It's odd that I don't recall observing that in the decades when I suffered daily from street harassment (one thing that getting older has mitigated considerably...)

>97 spiphany:

There was some recent-ish talk about this phenomenon in this group--ah, apparently here? (not sure if any earlier...):

http://www.librarything.com/topic/271514#6241822

There's so much pathology behind these men's grievances, their assumptions and worldviews etc. but what I find worst is that they aren't very far from what's still considered "normal" in traditionalist, conservative, right wing etc. circles. You can find their talking points in political platforms everywhere. More than that, given that rape culture is still dominant worldwide, their notions do, in fact, prevail in practice.

>98 MarthaJeanne:

A pretty "classic" notion, though. Men are entitled to sex, and women must serve men's needs.

It's only a scant few decades that marital rape was criminalised--and that's not universal yet, not by far.

>96 sturlington: Yesterday, I'd never heard of "incel" and now I just want to crawl back into bed, and not know it exists. The Twitter feed was pretty awful, but it seems symptomatic of so many things that seem to be going on, all at once.

This morning, I read through this, and was equally horrified, and nostalgic. We are right back in the middle of things, and I just have to keep feeling as though it can be solved, with a LOT of work. Same now as it was then; freedom isn't free.

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/movies/la-et-st-1968-vietnam-tv-hendrix-ess...

One thing I do enjoy about Twitter is how in the face all the ugliness and hate in the world, people come together and collectively reject it in a joyous way. Check out the tag #FemaleIncels for a great example of this.

>101 sturlington:

Thanks for that.

"Bitter Gertrude" blog had a post on March 31 that's pertinent to this horror (and would seem almost prescient if these massacring pigs weren't so many...):

MASS SHOOTERS: MORE MAGA THAN MISUNDERSTOOD

Most white male mass shooters– and most mass shooters are white males– are not “misunderstood loners.” Instead, they’re coming specifically from a place of entitlement– the straight white male entitlement that is a core belief in current extreme right-wing ideology.

She even mentions Rodger:

There are, of course, instances of left-wing violence, but they are dwarfed by the much more numerous instances of right-wing violence. Elliot Rodger didn’t want a girl to “walk up” and talk to him– he had been convinced by the alt right “manosphere” that he was entitled to a sexually available girlfriend and that violence was a logical expression of the anger he felt at being “denied” that. There are alt right spaces dedicated to Rodger, calling him a “hero.” Dylann Roof believed he was entitled to an all-white nation.

Theatre buffs, and fans of The Last Jedi, you may want to scroll down for a couple other posts, on what "white male geniuses" did for warping the perception of women's roles (theatre and literature), and why men hated The Last Jedi (and some other recent fantasy movies that did something new with--at least a few--female roles.)

(edited to touchstone the film)

No, it won't be called terrorism... (yet? How many more massacres will it take?) Killing women is still almost as normal as abusing, depreciating and oppressing women in any which way. (Or killing black people. Also not terrorism. Yet?)

‘Raw hatred’: why the 'incel' movement targets and terrorises women

This is my fear too--not an apprehension, but a conviction:

From the way chatroom moderators respond to threats of violence against women, to the reluctance among authorities to name this as a terrorist threat, I am filled with this unsettling sense that because incels mainly want to kill, maim or assault women, they are simply not taken as seriously as if they wanted to kill pretty much anyone else. Doesn’t everyone want to kill women, sometimes, is the implication? Or at least give them a fright?

How many times more in how many ways must we say this? Violence against women is regarded as normal!

On that point:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/apr/26/protests-spain-five-men-cleared-of...

Five men gang rape an eighteen year old woman they promised to see to her car; get convicted not of rape but "continuous sexual abuse". Not to be confused by the way she's treated by the court, although you'll be excused--I can't believe something like this is still possible in Spain.

Here is a good piece on white male entitlement and anger by Ijeoma Oluo. A snippet:

“Nobody cares about white men,” is a sentence I hear far too often. In facebook comments, tweets, article responses, emails, the op-eds of major national papers. Nobody cares about the white men left behind. Nobody cares about the white men who are collecting unemployment, or working middle management, or not getting regular blow jobs. Nobody cares about the white men whose hair is thinning and dad-bod is settling in and they never got to walk into a party with a hot girl on their arm and now it’s too late. Nobody cares about the white men who have to learn new terms like “privilege” or “cultural appropriation” or “social justice” — terms that don’t do anything to explain why they aren’t rich or powerful or happy.

But of course, everyone cares about white men. Do you want a movie about what it feels like to be a middle-class white man who has never gotten to skinnydip naked in the middle of the night with a hot girl? Oh it’s an entire genre. Do you want a really long think piece about how hearing the phrase “black lives matter” and having to go to community college instead of Harvard even though you only had a 2.3 gpa turned you into a neo-Nazi? If someone hasn’t written it yet, they will. Do you want a great American novel about how being a white dude working a secure, middle-management job with full health and retirement benefits makes you want to open fire at the next company potluck? Pretty sure your local librarian can point you to a few dozen.

And in all these tales, these articles and movies and songs — white men are angry. Justifiably angry, because they were supposed to be so much more than this. But nobody explains why.

Apparently she's getting excoriated by Trump's shits and almost no less than by what passes for the opposition (I was trying to type "the left" but my fingers couldn't do it) in a fascistoid country, so I just want to mark my heartfelt support for her. Unpleasant, was she--speaking truth has that quality, oddly enough.

Michelle Wolf's comedy routine at the 2018 White House Correspondents' Dinner.

I knew the "incel revolution" would have its "let's look at their point of view" defenders, but at the NY Times? There's more than that guy who defended the "hang women who have abortions" type? Don't know who is this Douthat person but on his notion about women owing men more equitable "sex distribution" I have only this to say: sacrifice your own skin first, sir. And only yours.

Talia Lavin at the Village Voice: (ETA: There are a number of quotations from "incel" websites that could be triggering for some.)

Someone Please Tell the Times That Incels Are Terrorists

(...) Yesterday, Douthat — that incorrigible chinstrap-bearded prophet of pedantic reason — published his own thoughts on the issue, entitled “The Redistribution of Sex,” positing that the idea of sex as a redistributable resource is “entirely responsive to the logic of late-modern sexual life,” and blaming “sexual liberation” for inceldom and its victims.

(...) One reason, of course, that these ideas are so thinkable — for the incels, and for their staunchly anti-abortion colleagues in the mainstream press — is that the government already exercises significant control over women’s bodies. A dystopia for women is not merely confined to the overheated male imaginary. Ross Douthat wrote his column the day Iowa passed a “fetal heartbeat” bill with the avowed intent of overturning Roe v. Wade. If even this is too abstract for you, consider that in 2012, the Virginia legislature passed a bill mandating penetrative transvaginal ultrasounds for women seeking abortions. The future male columnists laughingly imagine — the systemic control and torture of female bodies — is already present.

>106 LolaWalser: Douthat is one of the worst of a bad crop of op-ed writers at the NYT. I don't even bother reading their opinion pages anymore. We were talking about it yesterday, and my brother called them the Buzzfeed of print newspapers, meaning they're just trying to be as controversial and clickbait as possible without offering real commentary of substance.

Ugh, I'd spare the world this post but this morning I did something I rarely do--put up a review--and the mad coincidence between that and the book and "real life" news about the accusation of Luc Besson (which I only saw minutes ago) screams for a few remarks.

The darn book is Diva, my commute read of the past week which I finished yesterday, looked up on Goodreads and here this morning, and in reaction to all the wankers singing its praises decided to make my opinions public. Hence the review.

There's a couple in the book, he's 40, she's 13, she's "in love" with him, they live together and cuddle and kiss naked in bed lots, but he's not fucking her yet because she's still a minor. However, she turns legal for fucking purposes at 14, so happy days are just around the corner. If that's not skeezy enough, he's best buds with her dad who handed her over to the 40 yo con man for education and mentoring because that's what any dad would do. This is all presented as a very cool setup between very cool people--not like us squares who'd make a fuss. So far so not very startling as porn fantasies of middle-aged dickheads go, no? I mean, basically it's every "love" story by a middle-aged dickhead ever.

So, shrill feminist harpy that I am, I post a rude review about it all and go on with my assorted Sunday delights. And I chance on the article about Besson, first in one place then another, and my jaw drops because the tale of his sexual shenanigans repeats virtually point by point this seventies piece of crap. There's actually a direct connection--Besson, it turns out (what can I say, I saw a couple of his movies but didn't know anything about him before), made a movie in 1994 starring Natalie Portman as a 12 year old thief (as is the girl in Diva) in love with a 40-etc. yo gangster, the story clearly inspired by Delacorta's books (apparently there's a series of them featuring the duo). But that's not all--Besson also married a 15 year old whom he met when she was 12. This woman is now one of his exes, she had a child by him at 16, and according to various articles, was far from the first or last "youthful" infatuation.

What's my point? Not sure I can express it well, but you can probably guess--that there is no such thing as "mere entertainment", that wishful fantasy crap reverberates in real life as much or more than real life stirs fantasy. Oh, by no means am I saying that Besson went for a 12 yo because he read it in a book--I only think he (and others like him) was encouraged and emboldened in his pathetic skeeziness by a culture in which female children in particular are sexualised and adolescent sexual awakening taken as an invitation to every creep and his uncle as a matter of course.

It's not a few isolated creeps who are a problem, people. It's the whole fucking society.

And more to that point--(I'll link for reference to the page where I found this, apologies for the French, but I'll only translate a few bits:

https://www.reddit.com/r/france/comments/6kn5ub/19772017_comment_notre_morale_se... )

Okay, first, I found this because I googled an oddball author and book of his I have in Italian translation. The author is Gabriel Matzneff and I was curious what Goodreads is saying about it, but there was no hit for the title there and instead the Reddit article came up tops.

I'm not touchstoning anything because I don't want to give clicks to the dicks--suffice it to say that Matzneff was a self-confessed and proud "ephebophile" and the book (not the only one, btw) recounts his various relationships with youngish teenagers.

From the article, somewhat loose and paraphrasing translation:

Forty years ago, in an article written by Gabriel Matzneff and published by Le Monde, French intelligentsia demanded the release of three men prosecuted for sexual relations with 13 and 14 yo girls and boys.

Check out some of the signatories!!!: Jean-Paul Sartre, ­Simone de Beauvoir, Gilles Deleuze, Roland Barthes, Patrice Chéreau, Félix Guattari, Michel Leiris, Philippe Sollers, André Glucksmann, Jack Lang, Bernard Kouchner, Louis Aragon…

Jack Lang--French minister of culture!!!! Bernard Kouchner--founder of Médecins Sans Frontières!!!! HOLY GUACAMOLE!!! Yes, Virginia, the politicians shock me far more than the writers.

Article goes on:

Today nobody would forgive the three men (...) Indeed, paedophilia is today the worst imaginable crime. 1977-2017: how did our sexual morality undergo such a turnabout? According to the sociologist Pierre Verdrager, in order to understand this "retrospective astonishment", we should go back to the period after 1968.

In the war of ideas the paedophiles have on their side the extreme right, which eroticises asymmetric relationships--perceived as delightfully aristocratic--but also the left who thinks that the child should be freed from the gulag of the family: faced with the pater familias who fetishises and inhibits his progeny, the paedophile appears as the child's heroic saviour.

Another master-key pf paedophiles: Sigmund Freud. If sexuality exists from birth, they say, the notion of sexual maturity is idiotic. Even better: if the Oedipus complex exists, the first object of sexual fixation for a child is an adult. (OMG I CAN'T BELIEVE PEOPLE PEDDLED "ARGUMENTS" LIKE THESE!!!)

The "natural" process of liberation of the body

For all these reasons paedophilia then appears to the signatories as part of a "natural" liberation of the body. Contraception and abortion
are being allowed, women and homosexuals are being emancipated...
WHy not children? (OMG OMG OMG OMG OMGGGG!!!!)

In 1977, it's a matter of good taste to be for abolishment of sexual majority. The last shocking argument: victimisation--not of the children, but that of adults: the paedophiles, who invoke witch hunts and compare themselves to the Jews during WWII--a Godwin's law of the spirit.

The suffering of the child? For the signatories, it is, at best, due to the police procedure; at worst, denied. Children are presented as manipulative creatures, tempters with sometimes venal motivations, indeed as initiators of relationships. Their innocence is considered a myth, a fantasy good for the masses. Finally, they are considered armed well enough to defend themselves--it is "forgotten" that they may feel loyalty toward their family or fear of denouncing those close to them. Michel Foucault says at the time something unthinkable today: "We can trust a child to tell whether or not he had suffered a violence."

Etc. You, guys, this is EXACTLY what I've been seeing all over the place since forever. Exactly these notions and attitudes. BUT NOT JUST FROM THE PAEDOS!!! That's the point! Again. This was--IS--yes, still IS--"normal". Our media, literature, everything reeks of this.

I've been sort of subsumed in the demands of real life lately, and hence relatively quiet here on LT, but this was too good not to share

Nawal El Saadawi: Hillary Clinton is more patriarchal than men

The headline is misleading, though. It's not about Clinton or Teresa May so much as it is a condemnation of the entirety of patriarchy:

Saadawi observed that from the time of Egypt’s pharaohs—who ruled over Earth and the afterlife—religious and political power have been inseparable; there is no such thing as a secular state anywhere in the world. “In Egypt I was linking…religion to capitalism, to women’s rights,” she said. “So they had to stop me. I had to go to prison. They had to censor my work.”Above all, Saadawi said, religion is “silly. To believe that Christ came out of the grave and went to the sky, or he was crucified?” Saadawi laughed. “I spent 10 years of my life studying Judaism, Christianity, Islam, comparing the Old Testament to the New Testament to the Koran. I even went to India. I studied the Gita and Hinduism. The more you study religion, the more you see it is ridiculous.”

Why I love Jezebel--because where else could I hope to see my innermost feelings vented in a headline like this:

Fuck the Fuck Off Lindsey Graham, You Fucking Misogynist

And same to all the Republican shitstains.

I find myself getting upset at the headline that Trump says it is a difficult and scary time for young men. It is still a difficult and scary time for young women, who still find themselves at risk of sexual attacks.

Par for the course for that horse's ass.

It's a wonderful time for young men, a moment of liberation into better human beings. For the first time in history they get a chance to abandon the role of dickhead assholes. For the first time there is something like a general public discussion on toxic masculinity and rape culture and sexual consent. My generation didn't have that, to say nothing of those preceding.

Orange slimeball isn't stopping time.

>112 MarthaJeanne: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45738409

BBC talked to young men in America about this. I loved the responses indicating tha they are more likely to call other men out on these issues now.

The kids are okay.

And the dinos have had their day.

>115 LolaWalser:
that is literally all that is holding me together right now. we are going to swing so far in the other direction, if we can make it the few years it'll take to get there.

>116 overlycriticalelisa:

Yes, you will make it, and I wish you all the strength to endure these last lashings of the beast. But you will make it.

Here's an interesting analysis of the changing demographics in the US:

White threat in a browning America

Those shitty old white reptiles in the Senate are seeing their world melt away. No wonder the panic and the hysteria.

>117 LolaWalser:

it's true. it's not like they're going to be willing to let hundreds of years of power go away without a fight. i do think that's what we're seeing - the dying gasps of it.

if the world ends in 10-15 years (per that un report) i'm not sure we'll see the end of it, but it's on its way, certainly.

aaaahahahahahahahahahahah!

The Donald Trump CELL BLOCK TANGO (Part One) - Randy Rainbow Song Parody

Well done... fuck Hollywood forever.

White Savior: The Movie Trailer

>120 LolaWalser: Loved that. The actress was terrific.

oops double

>121 sturlington:

Isn't she fantastic?! That's Amber Ruffin, she's actually one of the writers for Seth Meyers--she ALSO has a terrific singing voice--in short the woman has it all. She should be a megastar.

>123 LolaWalser: She really should. Thanks for telling me who she is.

I recently watched Hidden Figures and Kevin Costner was straight playing the white savior.

>124 sturlington:

Can you believe it they still can't get rid of that white saviour crap in this day and age?

Anyway, please forgive my gush, just a couple older samples of Amber's goodness--the woman deserves her own show.

Amber Ruffin Remakes Art Created by Problematic Men and Amber Ruffin Raps a Response to Kanye West's Slavery Comments

Emma Thompson's letter to Skydance "Why I can't work for John Lasseter":

https://www.latimes.com/entertainment/la-et-mn-emma-thompson-john-lasseter-skyda...

If a man has been touching women inappropriately for decades, why would a woman want to work for him if the only reason he’s not touching them inappropriately now is that it says in his contract that he must behave “professionally”?

If a man has made women at his companies feel undervalued and disrespected for decades, why should the women at his new company think that any respect he shows them is anything other than an act that he’s required to perform by his coach, his therapist and his employment agreement? The message seems to be, “I am learning to feel respect for women so please be patient while I work on it. It’s not easy.”

Much has been said about giving John Lasseter a “second chance.” But he is presumably being paid millions of dollars to receive that second chance. How much money are the employees at Skydance being paid to GIVE him that second chance?

It's a thing of beauty.

Good for her. And isn't she lucky that she can afford this gesture. As she says, most of the women working there (for a lot less than he's getting) can't afford to quit.

Everything sucks, but not this:

Fat rat stuck in manhole rescued by firefighters in Germany

I swore I'd ignore American politics but I just gotta say, somewhere, once--I'm disgusted to hell by the treatment of Ilhan Omar (and also that whatsisname racist piece of shit demanding an apology from Rashida Tlaib, when she objected to how they showcased Trumpo's one "black friend" like a fucking cigar store Red Indian... but better not start itemizing...) And just as admiring of her and Tlaib's strength and resolve.

It feels especially timely right now seeing conservative (especially theocratic) dystopias in novels. Not that this idea is new, but the renewed popularity of The Handmaid's Tale (a true classic) seems to be producing novels in a similar vein.

Are there dystopic novels written by conservatives? I would be curious to read a few. I have read a bit of Ayn Rand of course, but is there anything more recent? It's easy for me to understand where theocracy goes. Where do they think progressivism goes?

I think dystopianism is a conservative's genre to begin with and Atwood's position (as far as I can judge from hearing about the book) is the rare one.

Where do they think progressivism goes?

1984, Animal Farm, "Eurabia"... there's no lack of that crap but it might be faster just to visit Breitbart? If you really don't mind punishing yourself, just about anything by Michel Houellebecq or Sad Puppies (the rightwing sf coterie that tried to game the Hugos) will answer.

>131 LolaWalser: It's interesting you say Houellebecq because the only novel of his I'm familiar with is Submission, in which a Muslim theocracy takes over France. I understand from reading about him just now that he's widely seen as racist. I haven't read the book so I don't know what to make of it: the idea is that progressivism leads to a Muslim theocracy so instead we should have a conservative white (Christian?) government to rule us? Seems like "come meet the new boss, same as the old boss" for women in many ways. I don't want a Muslim theocracy any more than I want a Christian one.

>132 sparemethecensor:

Oh dear, I didn't mean to start a discussion of Houellebecq... whatever he seems to be, he is. A craven little sexist racist POS who made a fortune out of scratching at his filthiest scabs--a specialty of French lit, not limited to the right. He's so sincere, you see. He's a gross white dickhead who revels in being obnoxious and disgusting, and that's all they need for literary veneration--a proud asshole. So they gave him a medal just recently. That's how much open misogyny and racism count for in France.

Yes, broadly, it's leftists who have let the Muslims in, so it's leftists we'll have to thank for when they impose sharia on us all etc. It's leftists who put notions of emancipation in women's heads, so it's leftists and women who are to blame for the miserable self-image of modern men and their wretched sex lives, including copious use of prostitution and pornography. In all his books women are degraded and then usually murdered--but that's the women's/leftists' fault, and the author's alter ego heroes, each and every one a mirror image of that hideous sad sack (just look at his photos), are ALWAYS the true objects of compassion and, perversely, admiration.

Par for the course in these times, when that despicable "psychologist" hack from Toronto is earning millions selling misogynistic snake oil to young male idiots (or do I repeat myself) and blames massacres of women on women.

But Houellebecq is too shit to admit openly that white male patriarchy is all he wants. His reactionary jeremiads are mere venting as much as incitement to hatred; the most "constructive" that he manages to be involves fantasies of some dim future where the sexes won't exist. Which is just another way of reinforcing misogyny as the order of the day: as long as there are genders, women have to be enslaved to men.

He's really just a severely limited old white man whose mediocre books' significance has been inflated by other mediocrities and D-students, people incapable of wrestling with the complexities of reality, desperate to maintain their fragile little egos. With what joy those poor morons claim that Houellebecq, you know, makes them think. There'd be more use for their brains if they turned to spuds.

>130 sparemethecensor: Both Zamyatin's We and Boye's Kallocain show dystopias where people exist for the state rather than the other way around. A bit like 1984 but these are both earlier. I haven't read The island of Dr Moreau but it sounds like it would allude to another conservative fear. However, I don't think any of these were actually written by a conservative, Boye definitely wasn't one.

>133 LolaWalser: Good to know. I won't be reading him. I suppose it shouldn't surprise me that women play such a role. It's appalling to me how many "hailed" literary careers are men doing a version of this. I couldn't make it through a single Philip Roth to give an American example.

>134 alvaret: Thank you. I've read We and Dr. Moreau actually. The latter didn't occur to me but it made me think also of Michael Crichton who made a career of novels encouraging us to fear scientific progress. I rather liked the two I read as a teen but I understand he went off the deep end with his conservatism (namely disbelieving climate change) toward the end of his life.

>135 sparemethecensor: Perhaps it would be easier to identify conservative dreams and Utopias and see how they would come in conflict with progressive ideas?

Unrelated, I'm struggling with the conversation around women being "host bodies" in the abortion debate. The most recent incarnation is here (https://www.wtsp.com/article/news/regional/florida/host-bodies-florida-speaker-jose-oliva-issues-apology-after-comments-on-pregnant-women-abortion/67-a39738b5-c9b8-4eeb-95d9-4058d720edfe) though we've heard this before including the viral one in 2017 (https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/oklahoma-host-woman-humphrey/).

Everyone seems to be saying "this is ridiculous" and forcing these lawmakers to apologize, but no one is talking about WHY this is happening -- namely, that anti-abortion politicians DO LITERALLY FEEL THIS WAY ABOUT WOMEN.

Can we grapple with this more seriously as a society? This goes far beyond a slip of the tongue. This is dehumanizing.

>130 sparemethecensor: Where do they think progressivism goes?

If the progressive concept of dystopia is one of enforced conformity and suppressed individuality fueled by a basic us vs. them ethos, would the conservative concept be one of the disintegration of cultural stability, the embracing of anarchy and general purposelessness?

They aren't conservative writers, but Samuel Delany's city in Dahlgren seems like it would fit. And it's been thirty years since I read it, but Logan's Run comes to mind -- that story where everyone lives for the moment and voluntarily goes off to be snuffed out when they turn 21.

>137 sparemethecensor: namely, that anti-abortion politicians DO LITERALLY FEEL THIS WAY ABOUT WOMEN.

The underlying, foundational principle of all "right to life" arguments that they are saving children is that women primarily exist to make children. That is what women are for.

>135 sparemethecensor:, >138 southernbooklady: that reminds me of Never Let Me Go which might also count as a conservative dystopia, although it is hardly in line with progressive ideals either.

>134 alvaret:

sparemethecensor asked specifically for recent works. Note that notions of what is "progressive" or "conservative" much change with time. Wells isn't easily seen as straightforwardly "progressive" in our context; a number of his opinions would today be judged conservative if not extreme right. Sir Thomas Moore's "utopia" strikes us today as very much a dystopia.

And I think the use made by the right wing of purportedly "leftist" writers' dystopias ought to be taken in account in considering the features that have come to dominate the genre. Zamyatin's and Orwell's satires have been completely instrumentalised by the right as a critique of specifically communist societies, giving rise to a flood of imitative anti-communist libertarian/liberal propaganda.

>141 LolaWalser: It's because of the right wing's use of them that I find them relevant, otherwise I wouldn't have recommended a novel by a homosexual socialist (Boye) as a conservative dystopia. But I admit that I failed to find any more recent examples.

>141 LolaWalser: asked specifically for recent works.

I haven't read it, but Naomi Alderman's "The Power"?

>143 southernbooklady:, >142 alvaret:

Neither did I. But I think sparemethecensor was asking about dystopias written by conservatives, not what books by progressives might qualify as "dystopias in conservative view". (All of them, probably.)

>143 southernbooklady: Interesting, I had forgotten about The Power. I didn't read it, but a friend did, and she told me she felt ultimately dissatisfied by the moral of "if women were in power they would be even worse than men in power" message. Some of the reviews here on LT seem to echo that sentiment. I'm not a Riane Eisler acolyte but I'm a bit skeptical there...

There's also something embedded in that idea which is not particularly conservative in viewpoint, right -- saying that women would subjugate, abuse, oppress men even worse reflects that men do subjugate, abuse, oppress women in our current social order.

>145 sparemethecensor:

I don't think conservatives ignore that their value system oppresses women (relative to how it treats men). It's that they see it as justified.

>146 LolaWalser: I suppose I am most familiar with the intellectually dishonest kind then: We aren't oppressing women! We are protecting them! Women are a special sex to be cherished and revered! Men and women play complementarian roles!

>144 LolaWalser: dystopias written by conservatives

There are a lot of religious-themed versions, I think. "End Times" stuff a la the "Left Behind" series.

What about Red Clocks? It's a warning to progressives but it reads like evangelical wish fulfillment, or like the middle era before Gilead.

I think I've drifted from the original question, tho. I think a conservative dystopia would look so good to me, I'd just think it was a fantasy novel. Sort of how Fox News lists AOC's goals (Medicare for all, free college, jobs for all, green new deal, guaranteed minimum wage, etc) and expects their viewers to be horrified when it all looks great to me.

>149 susanbooks: Yes, like Always Coming Home by Ursula K. Le Guin or the utopia in Woman on the Edge of Time would probably both read like conservative dystopias.

Worth reading whether you're a sports fan or not:

Once it was lonely being a female football fanatic. Not any more

Psychologists could explain better than I could why for girls being a player or reporter or supporter is a symbol of freedom. The women who do it just know how it feels. Watching football engages your emotions. Playing it makes you realise who you are. I’m starting work on a book about the pioneers of the women’s game, the ones who were around my age and played in the 1960s. Some Saturdays they couldn’t get a field because the men took the pitches. They had to change on buses or in toilets because there were no dressing rooms. “We just wanted to play,” one said. “I hated running. I still hate it. But when you’re running on the field it’s totally different. Step over that line, you changed. You weren’t a girl. You were a player.”