Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘books’ Category

If you haven’t seen this sweet kitteh hugging her very young baby, you probably haven’t been on the Internet this week. Watch for the real hug about halfway through:

If the hugging mama kitteh is already old hat, then you’ll want to proceed straight to these three clouded leopard cubs, born in the Nashville Zoo (via William K. Wolfrum). There’s no actual mother in this clip, only a human simulation of leopard-mama technique. Watch for it starting at 1:05. (My first thought: Oh, if only my son the Tiger had enough of a scruff for that trick to work!

And on the theme of calming our cubs, I’m besotted with the cover of this book,

Go the F**k to Sleep,

which isn’t out yet, but is eagerly awaited.

The cover art alone gets the Kittwampus pawprint of approval for felinity. Want to see the cozy cat family inside? The whole cubs, kits, and kaboodle has been leaked and put up on YouTube:

Sweet dreams! I, for one, am off to emulate that lucky mama tiger, except I won’t be using either of my cubs as a pillow.

Read Full Post »

With my partner a whole ocean away from me, I’m not in a very lovey-dovey mood for Valentine’s Day. That leaves plenty of time to think about what allowed Love to sneak out of courtly ballads and Shakespearean plays and into the hearts of average Americans. And no, it’s not chick lit or rom-coms.

The long answer would involve reading Stephanie Coontz’s Marriage, a History: How Love Conquered Marriage – the story of how marriage made the historical shift from an economic arrangement to a partnership from which we expect love and companionship..

Oh, and by now we also expect hot sex for more years than humans used to live, period, from birth to death. Nearly 500 years ago, Martin Luther set us down this road when he rejected the Catholic insistence on procreative sex, and instead embraced pleasure in marriage. Luther liked marriage. He termed it a “hospital for lust.” Bear in mind that in those days, hospitals weren’t in the business of curing; they took the poor and the insane and the unwed-but-pregnant off the streets. They were a way of containing social problems. Bear in mind, too, that Luther thought women’s lot was to be wives and mothers, undoing some of Eve’s screw-up in the garden. Still, there’s a solid though wavy line from Luther to Susie Bright.

The short answer: If we feel free to love today – or to lust outside of of the old “hospital” – we can thank two things: 1) the right to say no to sex, the key prerequisite for sighing a breathy, enthusiastic YES, and 2) reliable birth control with legal abortion as a safe backup. From the Ohio Statehouse to the House of Representatives, these rights are under more ferocious fire than I can recall in the post-Roe era.

But it’s a holiday, and so instead of gloom, let there be satire! It’s the more festive response – and maybe more effective , too. Here’s Kristen Schaal of the Daily Show, mocking the piss out of the “No Taxpayer Money for Abortions” crowd.

I used this in class last week to illuminate rape myths, and students got it like never before. (Does this mean college administrators will one day replace me with a semi-random mix off the tubes?)

And I knew I liked Felicity Huffman anyway (Lynnette is my favorite housewife, of course) but now I’m besotted:

(Via Rachel at Women’s Health NewsIf you can’t see either clip from your blog reader, click on through and say hey while you’re here.)

Take that to your next Tea Party, and sip it!

Happy Valentine’s Day to all, especially to those of you who are celebrating it alone with chocolate, champagne, or blogging. (I’ve only got two out of three but am wondering why I am too cheap to open the champagne sans partner. Wandering off to the kitchen now to rectify what I can …)

Read Full Post »

Just for the record: I would not care to samba with Julian Assange. Anything more intimate that square dancing, and I’d wonder what tricky step he might try … bareback, of course. Hmm, maybe “dosido your partner” means something different to Australian men of mystery?

Anyway, Gayle Force posted this irresistible clip. (Don’t see it? Go here.)

My favorite lyric?

Don’t corner Merkel, she’ll become tenacious

She’s risk-averse and rarely creative.

When I still lived in Germany, we regarded her as the Spawn of Helmut Kohl for her tenacity, risk aversion, and political acumen. Rather immaturely but accurately, we called her the Pillsbury Dough Girl. Back in the mid-1990s she honestly looked like she would end her career as a puff pastry; since then, she’s discovered tanning beds. I generally disapprove of tanning beds, but Merkel truthfully looks a whole lot less dowdy – unlike her mentor Kohl, who grew ever more dumpling-esque over time.

Here’s Merkel and mentor Kohl circa 1992:

(via the Editrix’ Roncesvalles)

And today? Why, it’s Merkel Barbie! (Or do the other dolls just call her Angie?)

(Image from Mattel. Don’t miss the flag on the left, or Angie’s pink accessories. Yeah, I know – I’m just spiteful because I want a Sungold Barbie!)

Had I been in the State Department, Wikicables would be a lot more embarrassing. Just imagine if diplomats and snarky bloggers magically traded places for a day! Oh, the places we’d go! The scandals we’d sow! Mmmmm, I feel some Seuss coming on: The Cat in the Hat Comes to the U.N.! The North-Going Zax and the South-Going Zax meet on that disputed Korean island! The Star-Bellied Sneetches Rock Paris! The Butter Battle and the Big Boy Boomeroo – coming soon to a dictatorial Middle Eastern nation near you!

On second thought, maybe we bloggers ought to stay home and start poring through those cables ourselves. We might yet uncover a Big Boy Boomeroo. I hear Iran is building one.

Read Full Post »

Via Echidne, I took one of those silly internet quizzes, this one purporting to correlate one’s own humble prose with that of famous dudes. (I suspected they were all dudes because I took it multiple times and did not turn up Margaret Atwood, to my overwhelming sorrow. A commenter at Echidne’s subsequently turned up a discussion elsewhere of the dudeliness – and whiteness – of the allowable matches.)

First my truly shameful revelation: my latest post on Sarah Palin’s wild ride churned up “Dan Brown” as my famous-dude counterpart. It’s enough to make a gal stop dabbling in conspiracy theories.

Otherwise, though, I came out as “David Foster Wallace” and “H.P. Lovecraft.” I am churlish. Despite my assumption that Atwood was off the list, in fact other commenters at Echidne’s did match Atwood’s style. So why, in the name of the holy Magdalene, do I resemble Dan Brown, even if only on the margins? I’ve read virtually all of Atwood’s corpus, including lots of obscure early poems. (Circe, anyone?) From David Fucking Foster Wallace, I’ve read not a word. Maybe it’s time I began?

I Write Like by Mémoires, Mac journal software. Analyze your writing!

All I know of H.P. Lovecraft is that he wrote horror and sci fi, which are not my bag. Otherwise I couldn’t distinguish him from H.R. Pufnstuf.

(Image from here.)

Knowing that most of my readers are writers of some stripe, I’m curious how y’all might come out. Go here and run your blog posts, lab reports, or Great American Novel through the robot. Leave your results in comments; post ‘em on your blog. If you’re anointed the new Margaret Atwood, just be kind enough to refrain from gloating. For what it’s worth, the robot thinks Atwood writes like James Joyce.

Read Full Post »

In a recent interview at Salon, Cacilda Jetha and Christopher Ryan, authors of the new book Sex at Dawn: The Prehistoric Origins of Modern Sexuality, conveniently tell us what sex is really like. They start with gay couples as their reference point, which is an interesting move, but then their theorizing goes straight down the Mars/Venus rabbit hole:

First of all, they’re both men, so they both know what it’s like to be a man. They both know from experience that love and sex are two very different things, and it seems that for women the experience of sexuality is much more embedded in narrative, in emotion, in emotional intimacy. But also it’s really hard to judge what women would be like if they hadn’t been persecuted for the last five or six thousand or ten thousand years for any hint of infidelity.

(The full interview is here.)

Nothing wrong with reversing the usual assumption that heterosexual couples are the norm and all other combinations deviant. This can help normalize same-sex relations, as well as shining a new light on heterosexuality. But Jetha and Ryan’s statement doesn’t do this. Instead, it’s swimming in oppositional sexism – the idea that men and women are opposites. It’s also traditionally sexist, in that it sets up a norm rooted in male experience, “know[ing] from experience that love and sex are two very different things.” Note that this compartmentalization is presented as knowledge, not as emotion, opinion, or preference.

It may well be true than on average, more men than women can easily separate love and sex. What to make, then, of the many women I’ve known who quite handily compartmentalize them? I know it’s possible, because I’ve done it (though I also couldn’t do it easily at this stage of my life). How are we to understand the men for whom sex is unthinkable, or at least quite hollow, ouside a context of caring and intimacy? I’ve known quite a few of those, too – more than enough to explode the dichotomy that Jetha and Ryan describe.

There’s a whiff of traditional sexism, too, in their last sentence, which positions men as a biological norm and women as different only due to the distortions of society. Yes, women have been persecuted and their sexuality brutally controlled by patriarchal forces. However, men’s sexuality is also molded by social and cultural forces, some of them highly repressive and cruel (see for instance the latest post in Richard Jeffrey Newman’s series on men’s bodies). It’s just silly to imply that men’s sexual desires and behavior simply reflect their biological drives, while women’s have been warped by culture.

At least in this interview (I can’t speak to the book), Jetha and Ryan appear to think that infidelity is mainly a male behavior. But how much do we really know about women’s capacity and propensity to be unfaithful? As I’ve argued here in the past, all those cheatin’ men have to be doing it with someone. Unless you accept the theory that there’s a huge pool of single women just panting after married dudes, it’s more logical to conclude that married/committed women systematically underreport their infidelity. In other words, women already engage in plenty of infidelity. By now, the impact of millennia of persecution is much reduced, in the Western world, anyway. We don’t stone women anymore for adultery. History casts a shadow of greater stigma on women who cheat, compared to men – and thus greater pressure to lie about it, even to researchers. Infidelity is no longer the province of men.

Regardless of whether monogamy is hard (it is), and regardless of whether women are naturally angels (we aren’t): Do we really want to work toward a new norm of keeping sex and love separate? Jetha and Ryan appear to be saying that since humans aren’t hard-wired for monogamy, the desire for sex-with-intimacy is not only confined to women, it’s also somehow aberrant. I’m not convinced. While I see nothing morally wrong with casual sex between two honest, enthusiastic partners, I recognize that getting to know a partner can enable wider arcs of pleasure. I’ve observed that casual sex with even a semi-regular partner tends to become less casual over time. Non-committed sex also has some built-in pitfalls that Lynn Gazis-Sax evocatively describes:

I also think that there are some drawbacks to having sex with people you don’t know well, that are worth talking about, and not brushing aside with “anything is fine as long as your both consenting.” Anything is not good if your consenting, and it’s fair to talk about why some initially consenting experiences turn out badly, as well as some turning out splendidly. Sometimes, the reasons those experiences turn out badly involve not knowing things about your lover that you might have found out if you’d waited a bit, or not realizing just how badly the two of you communicated, or overestimating your ability to be happy with more casual connections.

On the other hand … Sometimes it’s the relationship itself that’s bad, and those aren’t problems that are improved by making the sex more committed.

(Read the whole post here.)

In other words, sex can be toxic inside or outside of relationships. If “love” signifies manipulation, emotional indifference, or just a joyless shell of a marriage, of course sex won’t be any good either. And yet, we lose an awful lot if we assume that love always decays. Jetha and Ryan may well be correct that monogamy and decades-long love are not “natural,” but how much of our sexuality is merely “natural”? Isn’t it always shaped deeply by our culture? And even though we’re all creatures of biology and culture, don’t we all make choices – to be faithful, to tend the fires of lust over time, to value love – or not?

We lose even more if we replace the old imperative of sex-with-love with a new rule that’s simply its opposite. Because even if there’s nothing ethically wrong in principle with casual sex, in practice sex has the potential to be more rewarding with a partner who cares. If we don’t let it become humdrum, the rewards needn’t just be emotional either. Sex with a loving partner can be hotter – sexierwhen we dare to be to be our most naked selves. That’s not just a girly thing.

(Just because any post about sex and love deserves a flower. This one was blooming in my garden a few weeks ago. Photo by me, Sungold.)

Read Full Post »

So I’m purple with envy (yep, that’s one stage beyond green) at the folks who were lucky enough to attend the Rethinking Virginity conference at Harvard last week. I’m no longer a practical expert – why, my virginal days lie deep in the previous millennium – but I’d be a virgin at this sort of conference, one that straddles the academic, activist, and bloggy worlds. Oh, and it’s not just that I’d be mildly starstruck, though I’d love to meet Shelby Knox. The less famous folk had equally smart things to say. If you too want to feel mopey about staying home, Therese has got a very nice link farm from the conference.

Anyway, I’ve been mulling over those posts and triangulating them (hexatulating?) with Hanna Blank’s marvelous essay on process-oriented virginity in Yes Means Yes: Visions of Female Sexual Power and A World Without Rape. I’m basically on board with Blank’s suggestion that the world wouldn’t end if each person demarcated their virginity on their own terms. I especially love her idea (going back to St. Augustine, I shit you not!) that a rape survivor can define for herself whether she still wants to claim the title of virgin.

But part of me wants to say, Fuck virginity! What did it ever do for me, anyway? And can we cut out all this silly rhetoric about “losing” virginity? Grooving on my newfound sexual experience was pure win for me. I’m leaving out a few messy stories, sure, but on balance: pure fucking win.

And maybe we could just ditch virginity. Let it go up in smoke. Maybe we could talk instead about desires and acts and those particular people who set us humming.

But there is something important about “coming of age” sexually, and I wouldn’t want to lose that. Lux Alptraum’s wonderful Jezebel post on her conference panel provides the killer argument for why we still need “virginity.”

During the queer virginity panel, we examined how the notion of virginity—traditionally correlated with penis-in-vagina intercourse—transforms when mapped onto a queer identity. Though one panelist felt that the idea of virginity lost its meaning outside of a heterosexual relationship, I still feel that the experience of one’s first sexual relationship (however you define that) is significant enough to transcend gender, sexuality, and identity. In fact, in a queer space, loss of virginity can sometimes be more significant, as its that first sexual experience that solidifies an identity that might initially have been considered “questioning” or “curious.”

(More goodness here.)

My own coming-of-age story was relentlessly heterocentric, yet I totally get what Lux is saying about the formation of identity. Our first really significant sexual encounter shapes our sense of self – not immutably, but importantly. And it’s not just a matter of sexual-orientation as identity, though that’s obviously a huge deal. The demise of virginity can also be about claiming adulthood, learning a serious new way to play as an adult, relating differently to one’s body, moving a relationship to a deeper level, realizing that sex isn’t always linked to love. And that’s a short list of how our early sexual experiences may mold our identities and body-mind loops; maybe you’ve got more? If so, please bring ‘em up in comments.

So how would I redefine virginity? As much as I like Blank’s model, I think it’s too purely personal. We also need a more interpersonal way of understanding virginity. That is, unless we want to say masturbation counts as unravelling virginity – but I don’t want to go there, not least because I value the interpersonal dimension. Masturbation also opens the door to virginity loss among the under-three set. This seriously squicks me. The small people need to freedom to discover boyparts and girlparts without the baggage of innocence and experience. (Baby Jesus, for instance!) Let’s just stipulate: no virginity loss for the sippy-cup crowd.

For the rest of us? Well, I sort of like the idea of seeing a “first orgasm” (also from Blank) as the watershed. But for some of us, the orgasm gap could mean we’ll be in our forties when we shed our virginity. Great for Hollywood, just not what I sought at age 20.

So how about this: Virginity ends the first time you engage in partnered sexual activity and have an epiphany – either during or after – with orgasm or without – when you suddenly know: “Oh, this is what all the fuss is about!” This needn’t be penetrative sex; anything that makes you seriously swoon could count.

Alternative definitions, refinements, personal stories – all are welcome in comments!

Every sex post deserves a tulip, wouldn’t you say? I’m sure I’ve already recycled Luce Irigaray’s pun on “two-lips” (that meet as one). Photo from in front of my house about ten days ago.

Read Full Post »

In the shadow of the Catholic Church’s sexual abuses, Melissa McEwan of Shakesville wonders about the appropriateness of this image of Jesus in an Oklahoma church, while Andrew Sullivan simply comments, “Oh dear”:

(Image via Andrew Sullivan at the Daily Dish.)

In case it’s not obvious, the controversy is about the holy abdominal muscles, which are strikingly … um … erect.

Oklahoma Catholics appear to be split between oh-so-shocked and oh-so-in-denial. But they shouldn’t be. Nor does it make a whole lot of sense to attribute these massive “muscles” to the notion that Christianity is basically phallocratic, as one commenter does at Shakesville.

Instead, I’d read this picture as part of an artistic tradition that depicts the full humanity of Christ, emphasizing the paradox of his being completely human while also completely divine.

Back in grad school, I read a book by noted art critic Leo Steinberg, The Sexuality of Christ in Renaissance Art and in Modern Oblivion, which analyzes the depiction of Jesus’ genitals in Renaissance art. Steinberg marshals hundreds of images to show that artists went out of their way to emphasize the holy genitalia, whether by pointing at them, artfully draping them, or conspicuously exposing them. Far from being sacrilegious, these portraits underscored an important element of Christianity then in ascendance: the human side of the Incarnation.

You don’t have to be a believer to be convinced by Steinberg’s argument; at least, it worked for me! But if you are a believer, this artistic tradition should get you thinking about the shame Christians too often attach to the body, nakedness, and sexuality. From this angle, we need not see the sexualization of Jesus as something unholy. If he was perfectly human and perfectly divine, his sexuality must be perfect as well.

And if that’s the case, our sexuality must be at least blessed, if not perfect.

Just to give you a sampling of what Steinberg found, here’s the baby Jesus as portrayed by Veronese in the Holy Family with St. Barbara and the Infant St. John (circa 1560). He’s doing one of the things that babies do when they discover it feels good – even better than playing with their feet!

(Image borrowed from the Uffizi catalogue.)

There are also oodles of portraits in which Mary gestures at baby Jesus’ genitals, as in Perugino’s Mother and Child (circa 1500):

(Image from here.)

(There’s also an artistic tradition of gesturing at the genitals of the dead Christ after he’s taken off the cross, but I had a hard time finding the images Steinberg cites on the Internet.)

These artistic representations of Christ’s sexual nature as proof of the Incarnation are no longer comprehensible to most of us – even (or maybe especially) if we’ve grown up within a Christian church. I remember the sour-faced reaction of the clerk at Cornell’s campus bookstore when I purchased Steinberg’s book: “He should be ashamed of himself!” That was in the mid-1980s in a liberal college town. 

I can’t claim that the crucifix in Oklahoma is necessarily within the tradition Steinberg describes. I do think though, that one can legitmately read it as an expression of the Incarnation. Judging from the reactions it’s gotten, it looks like sexuality is still far from being reclaimed as not just compatible with Christianity but a blessed part of it.

Read Full Post »

My most recent lapse in blogging comes to you courtesy of the IRS and

Chancellor Otto von Bismarck, in one of his pensive, sexier moments. (He looks much hotter with less mustache. If hot is a word one can ever connect to Bismarck.)

I’ve finished my taxes. (Yay!) They collided in ways both stressful and funny with my mad rush to prep my Nazi class. (For those not following along at home, that’s a class on the history of Nazi Germany, not a class on how to be a Nazi. Though for those inclined toward the latter, may I suggest the Libertarian National Socialist Green Party – no linky-love for them, nosirree, moving right along! – whom I discovered through yet another unsettling google search.)

Anyway, while awkwardly multitasking between class prep and tax prep, I toted up a list of the books I’ve ordered recently. Then I tacked on the books that are literally underfoot. I didn’t manage to squeeze out a deduction for the IRS, but it was still a revealing exercise:

  • Sandra Harding, Standpoint Theory Reader
  • Sandra Harding, Whose Science?
  • Jaclyn Friedman & Jessica Valenti, Yes Means Yes
  • Katha Pollitt, Learning to Drive
  • Rebecca Kukla, Mass Hysteria
  • Eugene Kennedy, Unhealed Wound: The Church and Human Sexuality
  • Kelly Brown Douglas, Sexuality & the Black Church
  • Clayton Sullivan, Rescuing Sex from the Christians
  • Christine Gudorf, Body, Sex & Pleasure
  • Lisa Duggan, Sex Wars
  • Alice Echols, Daring to be Bad
  • Laura Kipnis, Against Love
  • Mama PhD (anthology)
  • Shulamith Firestone, Dialectic of Sex
  • Simone de Beauvoir, The 2nd Sex
  • Judith Walzer Leavitt, Make Room for Daddy
  • Carole Vance, Pleasure and Danger
  • Ann Patchett, Truth & Beauty
  • Lisa Jean Moore, Sperm Counts
  • Sarah Forth, Eve’s Bible
  • Cristina Mazzoni, Maternal Impressions
  • Laura Kipnis, The Female Thing
  • Margaret Atwood, Flood
  • Barbara Ehrenreich, Brightsided
  • Julia Serano, Whipping Girls
  • Kevin Haworth, The Discontinuity of Small Things (novel of Jewish life under German occupation)
  • Michael Kimmel, Guyland
  • Christopher Browning, Ordinary Men
  • C. J. Pascoe, Dude You’re a Fag
  • Eric Weitz, Weimar Germany: Promise and Tragedy
  • Ariel Levy, Female Chauvinist Pigs
  • Joan Sewell, I’d Rather Eat Chocolate
  • Deborah Siegel, Sisterhood Interrupted
  • Victor Klemperer, I Will Bear Witness
  • Michael Burleigh, The Third Reich
  • Kershaw, Hitler: Nemesis
  • Peter Fritzsche: Life and Death in the Third Reich
  • Judith Grant, Fundamental Feminism
  • Laura Augstin, Sex at the Margins
  • Kristin Luker, Sex Goes to School
  • Jackson Spielvogel, Hitler and Nazi Germany
  • Jeremy Noakes’ four-volume collection of Nazi primary sources
  • Jane Caplan, ed., Nazi Germany
  • Dagmar Herzog, Sexuality and German Fascism
  • Eberhard Kolb, The Weimar Republic
  • Hannah Arendt, Eichmann in Jerusalem
  • William Allen, The Nazi Seizure of Power
  • Maria Hoehn, GIs and Fräuleins
  • Nancy Reagin,  Sweeping the German Nation

See any patterns there? Have you guessed how Limbaugh’s got me all figured out?

Please leave your verdict in comments. First commenter to guess correctly gets a free copy of the map quiz I’m giving on Thursday on Europe in the interwar years. (But not before Thursday. It is embargoed! Super top secret!) Equally attractive prizes may be awarded for extra-creative wrong responses. We don’t do Rice-A-Roni here at Kittywampus, but we’ve got a mondo supply of Bunny Mac.

Read Full Post »

Historiann is wondering if there’s solid evidence that Mary Daly actually was transphobic. After a food-fight erupted in comments on Shakesville’s post, “RIP Mary Daly,” Historiann asks:

Did any of the very opinionated commenters [at Shakesville] who were so very concerned about Daly’s transphobia offer quotations, or, you know, any actual evidence of her grave sins against humanity?  (I mean, aside from citing Wikipedia?)  Did anyone do what Mary Daly herself did her whole life–commit scholarship by citing evidence, chapter and verse?

(More here.)

Now, I wasn’t involved in that pile-on because I’m generally uncomfortable with how the laudable idea of safe space sometimes becomes a silencing mechanism at Shakesville, and so I never comment there. I fully agree with Historiann: the snap judgments in that comment thread epitomize a real problem in feminist blogdonia – a tendency to assume bad faith and judge quickly and harshly.

But yeah, Daly did write some nasty things in Gyn/Ecology. I spent some time today digging through it (the relevant passages can all be found online, though you have to cobble them together from Amazon and Google Books). I didn’t find the term “Frankensteinian” applied verbatim to transsexuals, so technically Wikipedia may be incorrect in imputing it to her (or maybe I just didn’t find it). But only technically. I’ll get to the Frankenstein thing in a moment.

First, some context. Saying that radical feminists/hags must find their own selves, Daly cautions against being “swallowed up in male-centered (Dionysian) confusion. Hags find our own boundaries, our own definitions.” So far, so good. What’s not to like about defining one’s own boundaries? It’s smart and healthy, both personally and politically. But then Daly starts crossing my boundaries:

The Dionysian solution for women, which is violation of our own Hag-ocratic boundaries, is The Final Solution. To succumb to this seductive invitation is to become incorporated into the Mystical Body of Maledom, that is, to become ‘living’ dead women, forever pumping our own blood into the Heavenly Head, giving head to the Holy Host, losing our heads.

This is an example of Daly’s language-play leading her into incoherence. Meaning disintegrates: what does it mean to give head to the Holy Host? Last I knew, you chew on the host, which is sort of the opposite of what men appear to enjoy in fellatio – or have I been missing out on something important? There’s no substance in that metaphor, only a drive-by condemnation of blow jobs.

But that’s a frivolous point. What made me flinch here – and we haven’t gotten to the transphobia yet – was her appropriation of the Holocaust. It’s legitimate to look at genocide in comparative history. It’s not okay to use it as a metaphor for women identifying with men.

This notion of a Dionysian Final Solution forms the launching pad for Daly’s attack on trans people:

Dionysus sometimes assumed a girl-like form. The phenomenon of the drag queen dramatically demonstrates such boundary violation. Like whites playing “black face,” he incorporates the oppressed role without being incorporated in it. In the phenomenon of transsexualism, the incorporation/confusion is deeper. As ethicist Janice Raymond has pointed out, the majority of transsexuals are “male to female,” while transsexed females basically function as tokens, and are used by the rulers of the transsexual empire to hide the real nature of the game. In transsexualism, males put on “female” bodies (which are in fact pseudofemale).

(This and previous quotations are from Gyn/Ecology: The Metaethics of Radical Feminism, 67-8)

Here, Daly uncritically appropriates Raymond’s notion of a transsexual empire – a sort of conspiracy by men to invade and colonize women’s bodies and the feminist movement. She expresses no skepticism, only approval. I don’t see any way to redeem this. It’s transphobic through and through.

Two pages later, the next section is titled “Boundary Violation and the Frankenstein Phenomenon.” Daly positions Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein as “prophetic,” claiming it foretold “the technological fathers’ fusion of male mother-miming and necrophilia in a boundary violation that ultimately points toward the total elimination of women.” (70)

So Daly’s appropriation of the “Final Solution” is no accident. She literally warns against a genocide that would wipe out all women.

How would this occur?

Today the Frankenstein phenomenon is omnipresent not only in religious myth, but in its offspring, phallocratic technology. The insane desire for power, the madness of boundary violation, is the mark of necrophiliacs who sense the lack of soul/spirit/life-loving principle with themselves and therefore try to invade and kill off all spirit, substituting conglomerates of corpses. This necrophilic invasion/elimination takes a variety of forms. Transsexualism is an example of male surgical siring which invades the female world with substitutes.”

(Gyn/Ecology, 70-71)

Other “manifestations of phallotechnic boundary violations” include “male-created genetic engineering” and cyborgs along with behavioral psychology and “other Master Mothers, such as physicians and surgeons (especially in gynecology/obstetrics and in neurosurgery), psychiatrists, therapists, and counselors of all kinds.” (71)

Not to make any excuses for the history of gynecology, which is absolutely rife with human rights abuses, but “transphobic” almost seems like too weak a word. The most charitable reading of this passage positions MTF (male-to-female) transsexuals as the unwitting dupes of evil surgeons. Alternatively, MTF transsexuals are themselves agents intent on destroying the female world.

So no, I didn’t catch the word “Frankensteinian” in the midst of all this, but that doesn’t make it any prettier. Transsexuals are at least associated – and possibly identified – with necrophiliacs and power-mad men. They are described as modern-day, real-world Frankensteins. This is defamatory. This is hate speech.

Daly returns to transsexuals in her flights of fantasy at the end of Gyn/Ecology. While describing an “Amazonian Dissembly,” she imagines a group she calls “the Obsessors” who are purveyors of women’s sexualization, bearing such items as cosmetics, Penthouse, and the Pill:

It is also noted that among this faction there are some who appear to be eunuchs. One is carrying a placard which reads: “I am a lesbian-feminist male-to-female transsexual. Take me in.” As they begin to file off the platform two Harpies swoop down into their midst, causing them to stumble and stagger in all directions.” (420)

It’s clear that Daly denies trans people the basic respect of acknowledging their own identity. Even more, she calls them “eunuchs,” implying they are sexless. And in the end, she gleefully imagines them being driven off from the gathering of women.

Except, of course, this scene didn’t only occur in Daly’s imagination. Self-identified radical feminists have often excluded trans women in real life. They just haven’t had the aid of flying Harpies.

But that’s only the end of Gyn/Ecology, which was published in 1978; it’s not the end of Daly’s career. (In my head, I’m channelling Paul Harvey: “And now you know … the rest of the story.) In comments to my previous post, Xochitl – a young woman who worked personally with Dalystates that Daly renounced such transphobic views later in life:

I got to know Mary in the last few years of her life – and of course I had to speak up for my trans friends – I’ll gladly report that Mary no longer held the same trans-phobic views that Jan Raymond expressed in her dissertation decades ago. I cannot report changes about Raymond’s thoughts only because I have not followed up on how her ideas developed. But I can attest that Mary’s own thoughts and perspective on this definitely changed – which only makes sense considering that for her to live is to change and move and grow with the movement of Ultimate Intimate Reality – Goddess is Verb for Mary Daly – there is no way she would have maintained static ideas.

One day I will write more on this – I do not want future generations of feminists, trans friends included, thinking of Mary Daly as their enemy.

She really is an ally. Of course this is not to diminish the harm and effect that any trans-phobic expressions will continue to have. That’s the risk any of us take when we put something in writing – it seems so permanently true. But in reality, all texts simply capture one moment – it is only a reflection of that one moment in ones developing thoughts and theories…

I have no reason to doubt Xochitl and pretty good cause to believe her. Judging from her blog, she strikes me as smart and principled. She describes herself as queer and Christian in an unorthodox way (if I’ve read it right). Yes, she’s got some personal loyalties, but her political and religious commitments are her own, not Daly’s.

It would have been wonderful if Mary Daly had publicly renounced those transphobic passages from Gyn/Ecology. I’m not aware of her having done so – but if anyone knows better, please correct me. (I’m not so interested in static ideas, myself, especially if they’re wrong!) Daly could have sent a signal to the younger generations of women who’ve embraced radical-cultural feminism and its attendant idea that the mere existence of trans people poses a danger to “real” (cis) women. Whatever one’s feelings about the content of her work, Daly lived a remarkable life. Disowning her transphobia would have been a generous gesture that might have influenced younger generations. It might even have opened up her legacy to the trans people and their allies who know her only as the philosopher who called them power-mad, necrophiliac monsters in the shadow of Frankenstein.

Read Full Post »

A couple of weeks back, Ann Bartow of Feminist Law Professors ran a post on the Literary Review’s Bad Sex in Writing awards, in which she observed that misogyny breeds “bad sex writing, as well as bad sex generally.” I had no idea just how bad – and how misogynistic! – until the Daily Dish posted the winning scene, penned by Jonathan Littell, author of The Kindly Ones:

Her vulva was opposite my face. The small lips protruded slightly from the pale, domed flesh. This sex was watching at me, spying on me, like a Gorgon’s head, like a motionless Cyclops whose single eye never blinks. Little by little this silent gaze penetrated me to the marrow. My breath sped up and I stretched out my hand to hide it: I no longer saw it, but it still saw me and stripped me bare (whereas I was already naked). If only I could still get hard, I thought, I could use my prick like a stake hardened in the fire, and blind this Polyphemus who made me Nobody. But my cock remained inert, I seemed turned to stone. I stretched out my arm and buried my middle finger into this boundless eye. The hips moved slightly, but that was all. Far from piercing it, I had on the contrary opened it wide, freeing the gaze of the eye still hiding behind it. Then I had an idea: I took out my finger and, dragging myself forward on my forearms, I pushed my forehead against this vulva, pressing my scar against the hole. Now I was the one looking inside, searching the depths of this body with my radiant third eye, as her own single eye irradiated me and we blinded each other mutually: without moving, I came in an immense splash of white light, as she cried out: ‘What are you doing, what are you doing?’ and I laughed out loud, sperm still gushing in huge spurts from my penis, jubilant, I bit deep into her vulva to swallow it whole, and my eyes finally opened, cleared, and saw everything.

Yep, folks, that’s the winning passage, or should I say the victorious wet tunnel, spasming around the author’s fingers?

I would love to hear what French feminist Helene Cixous would have to say about the mythological figures. Her famous piece, “The Laugh of the Medusa,” builds up to this, um, climax:

You only have to look at the Medusa straight on to see her. And she is not deadly. She is beautiful and she is laughing.

The Medusa represents female sexuality. Perhaps she turned Littell’s protagonist to stone, but how then did his cock remain inert? Shouldn’t it be rock-hard, too? Ah, the incoherence of phallogocentrism! (I promise not to use that word too often, but it seems just perfect here.)

And if the vagina is the Cyclops’ eye, then how is it also Polyphemus?

And if our hero swallowed the vulva whole, wouldn’t he get awful indigestion? Or did I misread it, and he swallowed his own sperm?

And if his eyes then open, does that mean he’s now got a couple of vulvas just below his forehead?

And if the eye is immersed in the vagina but vaguely connected to the hip, can I imagine the body as anything other than a monstrous molar pregnancy? Yes, I realize this is supposed to be symbolic. (Cixous and other Lacanians might say this passage is immersed in the Symbolic order, the realm of life ruled by the Law of the Father.) But anatomically, it’s a train wreck.

At any rate, looking directly at the Medusa seems to destroy all logic, so maybe Cixous was on to something there. Littell’s imagination definitely made me LOL (a term unfortunately missing from Cixous’ oeuvre), so perhaps that renders me a mini-Medusa.

Some of the runners-up were equally impressive – if by “impressive” you mean strainingly pathetic in their apparently threatened masculinity. Here’s part of Philip Roth’s entry (yes, these appear to all be big-name writers, and yes, Roth should’ve stayed with the angst-y masturbation scenes of his youth):

The green cock plunged in and out of the abundant naked body sprawled beneath it, slow at first, then faster and harder, then harder still, and all of Tracy’s curves and hollows moved in unison with it. This was not soft porn. This was no longer two unclothed women caressing and kissing on a bed. There was something primitive about it now, this woman-on-woman violence, as though, in the room filled with shadows, Pegeen were a magical composite of shaman, acrobat, and animal. It was as if she were wearing a mask on her genitals, a weird totem mask, that made her into what she was not and was not supposed to be. She could as well have been a crow or a coyote, while simultaneously Pegeen Mike. There was something dangerous about it. His heart thumped with excitement – the god Pan looking on from a distance with his spying, lascivious gaze.

It was English that Pegeen spoke when she looked over from where she was, now resting on her back beside Tracy, combing the little black cat-o’-nine-tails through Tracy’s long hair, and, with that kid-like smile that showed her two front teeth, said to him softly, ‘Your turn. Defile her.’

Ew. This language of humiliation – sex makes her dirty! – makes me crazy. I am okay with green cocks; better that than a “realistic” dilso. It’s the idea of humiliation and defilement that squicks me.

From John Banville:

When he kisses her hot, soft mouth, which is bruised a little at one corner, he knows at once that she has been with another man, and recently – faint as it is there is no mistaking that tang of fish-slime and sawdust – for he has no doubt that this is the mouth of a busy working girl. He does not mind.

I assume this Banville is hetero, and thus inexperienced with that particular taste. Fish-slime? Sawdust? I’d be concerned about what she’d used to wash out her mouth between customers. Seriously, sawdust??!?

From Amos Oz, following upon a description of a woman (or girl?) with “the breasts of a twelve-year-old girl”:

And she, like a baby, suddenly thrusts her thumb into her mouth and begins sucking on it loudly, until her back suddenly arches like a stretched bow, and a moment later, when she has sunk back onto the mattress, a long, soft cry bursts as though from the bottom of the sea, expressing not only pleasure but astonishment, as though it were the first time in her life she had reached that landing stage, as if even in her wildest dreams she never imagined what was waiting for her here.

Seriously pedophilic, dude. Give that man a rattle and a sippy cup.

And this offering from Nick Cave:

Bunny lifts his head and looks at her and sees that River’s visage has changed somehow – there is a pout of hubris with self-admiration as she picks up the rhythm of what she would consider to be, come morning’s sober light, basically a sympathy fuck.

‘Oh,’ she says, as she pounds her bullet-proof pussy down.

I’m willing to cut Cave some slack because a commenter at Feminist Law Professors says his book is actually a dark comedy that’s intended to take the piss out of misogynists. But even so, that “bullet-proof pussy” must come from somewhere. (Maybe it’s a phrase from James Bond and not a product of Cave’s own imagination?)

From Anthony Quinn:

Then he dipped his head lower until his mouth grazed the tip of the inverted white triangle that ended between her legs; he brought a hand around and, parting her legs slightly wider, allowed his finger to draw back the pouched silk. It felt to him as if he were tending a delicate weeping wound, and as he probed it with his tongue he heard her moan quietly. Excited by the oysterish intricacy of her he sucked and licked the salty folds until they became sweet, and slowly she arched her back to heighten the angle of provocation.

Wow, maybe it wasn’t a woman at all but an injured oyster? Seriously, I cut my leg shaving this week, and it was a bad scrape that kept weeping for five days. I can guarantee you it wasn’t erotic in the least, though maybe I overlooked the third eye on my ankle or possibly a stray green strap-on affixed to my pinkie toe?

From Simon Van Booy:

Our bodies moved of their own accord. Hannah’s body was swallowing, digesting all that was mine to give.

Again, the anatomy boggles! Either Hannah has incredible deep-throating skills and the world’s shortest esophagus, or some extraordinary enzymes in her genitals.

Richard Milward starts off with yet another foray into freaky anatomy …

Bobby sucks all the freckles and moles off her chest …

but then does a quick skidoo into the land of talking genitals and condoms:

… Georgie has to roll Mr Condom down Mr Penis for him and she has to help insert him into Mrs Vagina. They shag at double-speed : Inthekitchenthrydospoonsonthebreakfast baramongstallthecutlerytheninthebathroomtheyshowereachotherwithhotkissesandGeorgiekneels onthepisserwhileBobbydoesheruptheshitterthenintheloungtheybounceupanddownonthesofathenin thebedroomtheysqueakthespringsofthemattress. Meanwhile, down in Vaginaland, Mr Condom’s beginning to feel a bit iffy. He’s overheating. For some reason, the shagging seems to be twice as fast this evening, and he grimaces as he gets flung willy-nilly in and out of the pink tunnel. He starts getting friction burns, hanging onto Bobby’s stiff penis for dear life, headbutting Georgie’s cervix at 180 beats per minute. ‘Help me!’ he yells in the darkness, feeling himself melting. The sex only seems to be getting faster though, and Mr Condom squeezes his eyes shut as Bobby groans and the friction starts getting unbearable and Mr Condom thinks he’s going to be sick and the searing pain the searing pain and Bobby groans again and suddenly squirts a gallon of white molten lava from his Jap’s eye, exploding through Mr Condom’s heavy reservoir end and Mr Condom screams and screams and vomits ice cream into Georgie’s vagina.

Quite apart from the racism, that’s enough to put a gal off sex and ice cream alike for a lifetime.

(This and all other quotations came from the Literary Review’s runners-up page, which has more awesome horribleness. If you’re insatiable, previous years’ winners are here. The John Updike and Norman Mailer scenes are a must-read.)

Ann Bartow was wrong about one thing, though. The short list wasn’t all men. It did include one woman, Dr. Sanjida O’Connell. I know she considers herself a woman because I googled her and found that her webpage features flowers (gorgeous, not cutesy) and lots of feminine pronouns. Like some of the other contenders, she goes a bit heavy on water imagery, but I actually rather liked this:

He felt they were lacking some vital ingredient; she was only partly engaged, the building explosion of sensation that had made her unfurl like a flower, a morning glory greeting the sun, was missing. He stopped.

What is it? she asked.

You, he said. I’ve lost you, he whispered.

She smiled, wide-eyed, lithe as a cat, she twisted her body, took his hand and showed him what to do; he felt her breath hot against his throat, her pulse quicken, limbs grow taut.

Then it’s back to waves and currents and tides. But still. I love that the partners are in tune with each other – that she describes the inevitable asynchronies of sex as normal instead of threatening – and that the woman is confident to show the man how to make her lust blossom. Like a morning glory, if you will. I could actually imagine giving O’Connell’s book a whirl. I like her title, The Naked Name of Love. At the very least, she seems to have a solid grip on basic anatomy.

I’ve read too many Harlequins to argue that women are going to write better sex scenes than men. Most sex writing is hackneyed. It’s engorged with cliches (if you will). Writing well about sex is very, very hard. (Or maybe not so much hard as moist, apparently.) The short-listed authors at least tried to be creative, and if the list tilts heavily toward men, I suspect it’s because the roster of Serious Novelist is still heavily male. But it’s remarkable how badly these celebrated authors’ skills collapse in the authorial bedroom – and just possibly in the literal bedroom too. I gotta agree with Ann Bartow on that. These guys may be Serious Writers, but mostly they appear to be seriously anatomically challenged.

Read Full Post »

Cornel West has come out with a memoir. While I loved the talk he gave at my university last winter – it was dramatic and stirring and compassionate – his new book is just self-dramatizing, according to  Scott McLemee, reviewing West’s memoir at Inside Higher Ed. (Via Aunt B at Tiny Cat Pants.)

I don’t know if the memoir as a whole makes West out to be as full of himself as McLemee’s review suggests. I’m not even sure where to draw the line between healthy self-regard, useful self-promotion, and outright “self-infatuation,” to use McLemee’s term. Those lines are extra-slippery for members of historically disadvantaged groups. They’re plain treacherous for African-Americans, who are still quickly suspected of being “uppity.” And I absolutely do see a legitimate role in academia for people capable of not just philosophizing but also inspiring and performing. As my colleague Mara Holt observes in her comment on McLemee’s piece, West does all of these things well, with the result that he’s drawn not just poor black kids but also white kids from Appalachia into advanced studies. So even if I’d read West’s memoir (which I haven’t) I’d hesitate to endorse McLemee’s review wholesale.

However, McLemee quotes a passage that really raised my feminist hackles. Here’s West on his romantic life:

“The basic problem with my love relationships with women is that my standards are so high — and they apply equally to both of us. I seek full-blast mutual intensity, fully fledged mutual acceptance, full-blown mutual flourishing, and fully felt peace and joy with each other. This requires a level of physical attraction, personal adoration, and moral admiration that is hard to find. And it shares a depth of trust and openness for a genuine soul-sharing with a mutual respect for a calling to each other and to others. Does such a woman exist for me? Only God knows and I eagerly await this divine unfolding. Like Heathcliff and Catherine’s relationship in Emily Bronte’s remarkable novel Wuthering Heights or Franz Schubert’s tempestuous piano Sonata No. 21 in B flat (D.960) I will not let life or death stand in the way of this sublime and funky love that I crave!”

Nothing wrong with high standards. But the desire here is for something more: sheer perfection. West duly notes that he expects as much of himself as of his partner, but let’s get real. In any hetero relationship, who’s more likely to be responsible for nurturing acceptance, flourishing, and peace? Who’s got the job of CEO (Chief Emotions Manager)? Sure, some dudes have evolved to true mutuality in tending their relationships. They are not the rule, especially in my generation and above (Prof. West is in his mid-50s). Even men who aren’t shy about sharing their feelings are still less likely that their partner to monitor the pulse of the relationship and to check in on their partners’ feelings.

The problem isn’t wholly reducible to gender, though. West seems almost wilfully ignorant of the fate of grand passions in the world. There’s a good reason to cite Heathcliff and Catherine: They’re fictional. They’re not real. Unions that burn so intensely tend to flame out, which is why so many stories of tempestuous love end at the wedding instead of following the volatile lovers into the doldrums of middle age or the skirmishes of divorce court. I’m more inclined to agree with Robert Hass in “Against Botticelli”:

The myth they chose was the constant lovers.
The theme was richness over time.
It is a difficult story and the wise never choose it
because it requires a long performance
and because there is nothing, by definition, between the acts.

Note that I’m not arguing for the impossibility of lasting love, only for the unsustainability of grand passion on the scale West demands. I’m especially skeptical that any person could be wholly devoted to romantic love while encumbered by other major commitments. Who can handle all that full-blast mutual intensity, and a named professorship, too? Not to mention a minor acting career, a full speaking schedule, and dabbling in hip-hop? His own memoir provides unwitting evidence that the quest for romantic perfection is quixotic: he’s been divorced four times.

I suspect the reference to Schubert’s piano sonatas reveals a lot: why pick a solo piece as your metaphor? Wouldn’t real love be a duet?

And then there’s this: “Does such a woman exist for me?” (my emphasis) The question could sound plaintive, coming from a guy who’d had only lousy luck in love. It could sound humble, coming from a shy or insecure man. But Professor West is none of that. He’s a very talented intellectual with no shortage of admirers and confidence. It’s hard not to read his question as insufferably self-serving.

It’s too bad, because the most memorable line from West’s speech last winter was, “Justice is what love looks like in public.” Flip that phrase around and you get: “Love is what justice looks like in private.” That’s a phrase West never uttered, and to be fair, his speech didn’t address romantic love. Yet I don’t see how real love can exist without justice, fairness, and equity between partners. I can’t imagine how the  incandescent, ultimately unstable love he demands will nurture a just partnership. More likely, that “sublime and funky love” will have real and gendered costs for the woman in the great man’s shadow.

Or I could just quote McLemee’s wife, who said: “Any woman who reads this needs to run in the opposite direction when she sees him coming.”

Read Full Post »

So I read in the New York Times that the Baby Einstein company is offering a money-back deal for those of us whose kids watched their silly videos and didn’t turn out to be the next Stephen Hawking … yet. I’ll confess to owning the original Baby Mozart, plus Baby Shakespeare and a couple more. I didn’t let either kid watch TV during the first year of life, but once the Mammary Channel went dark, they seemed to be casting about for new entertainment. The alternative was Teletubbies or Barney. Einstein was a no-brainer. So to speak.

The jury’s still out on whether my kids are geniuses (evil or benign), but I’m pretty sure a critical mass of my brain cells dissolved while watching those puppets and hypnotic mechanical toys. (It says something about our kid culture, I’m afraid, that one last refuge of mechanical toys is the television.)

So I’m thinking about demanding money back – not because the kids haven’t yet managed to fold gravity into the grand unification theory, but because my repository of names is shriveling and the rest of my brain is sure to follow. I figure my gray cells might be worth 4 x $15.99. But that would require me to remember where I stashed my stamps.

I will say one thing for the Baby Shakespeare video: It had the wonderful W.B. Yeats poem, “The Cat and the Moon”:

The cat went here and there
and the moon spun round like a top,
and the nearest kin of the moon,
the creeping cat, looked up.
Black Minnaloushe stared at the moon,
for, wander and wail as he would,
the pure cold light in the sky
troubled his animal blood.

Minnaloushe runs in the grass
lifting his delicate feet.
Do you dance, Minnaloushe, do you dance?
When two close kindred meet,
what better than call a dance?
Maybe the moon may learn,
tired of that courtly fashion,
a new dance turn.

Minnaloushe creeps through the grass
from moonlit place to place,
the sacred moon overhead
has taken a new phase.
Does Minnaloushe know that his pupils
will pass from change to change,
and that from round to crescent,
from crescent to round they range?

Minnaloushe creeps through the grass
alone, important and wise,
and lifts to the changing moon
his changing eyes.

Oooh, that makes me shiver – with the beauty, not fear.

But then again, there’s that line about spinning ’round like a top:

MoonMachineBarf

Moon kitteh from ICHC?

In all other ways, though, the big “baby video” winner at our house was the highly obscure “Baby Babble.” Next to the slick Baby Einstein series, its production values were based on string and chewing gum. “Baby Babble” showed two speech therapists playing with toys and puppets, making noises like “pop pop pop pop pop pop.” The intent was to get your kid to talk – to the TV, which seemed a little twisted – but hey, the Tiger had no stable words at 18 months and we were getting nervous. We tried “Baby Babble” when the Tiger was two years old but still not even saying “no.” And guess what? He started to say “pop pop pop pop pop pop.” From there it was a short skip to “cookie” and then “Mama, can us eat some candy for desert? Why not? But you said I could have a Tootsie Pop! You did! Did you know there’s Tootsie Roll inside?”

That goofy “Baby Babble” video did more good than all the Baby Einsteins put together. It might even trump the year of speech therapy that the Tiger put in as a small cub.

Now, I’m just wondering where’s the video that would get my kids to listen when the grow-mutts talk?

Read Full Post »

I’m feeling very torn about whether to ask my intro to women’s and gender studies class to buy the anthology, Yes Means Yes: Visions of Female Sexual Power and A World Without Rape.

The pros: The essays are accessible. They’re written by young women. They speak to real problems that my students face. They elaborate on the concept of “enthusiastic consent,” which in my mind is the best approach so far to undermining a culture that supports rape. The book is also inexpensive enough that it wouldn’t be a hardship to add it on top of the pricey reader they’ll all need. Hey, if you haven’t read it, you might want to!

The con: Fuck fuck fuckity fuck! Some of the essays are quite blunt in their language. Kate Harding’s excellent contribution is entitled, “How Do You Fuck a Fat Woman?”

Myself, I’m not squeamish about a bit of pottytalk. (Those few readers who’ve known me since college are now blowing coffee out their nose.) I think “fuck” has myriad uses. Sometimes it’s just the right word for the job. Since a lot of these essays are written by bloggers, they reflect a particular lefty bloggy aesthetic, which Blue Gal describes thusly:

So sometimes fuck is just used as invective and sometimes, well, we actually are talking about fucking, the actual sexual act. Usually when we’re talking about actually fucking, though, we’re talking about Republicans/conservatives fucking and we’re laughing at them. Because one of the really fun things about fucking is that we liberals know that conservatives are fucking and they can’t talk about it like we can. It takes enlightenment to distinguish morality from humanity and decide that fucking is something humans do and that fucking is not necessarily a bad thing in and of its own self. But conservatives are all repressed about fucking so we can have a lot of fun with them.

(This is classic Blue Gal; read the whole post here.)

In Yes Means Yes, “fuck” often does refer to actual sex. “Cunt” is even more direct. I happen to think these words can be reclaimed for feminist purposes. Not everyone agrees, and I’ve had one classroom experience where a student who wanted to reclaim “cunt” shut down the whole discussion. I wasn’t quick enough on my feet and the other students were just plain shocked. But I’m all in favor of demystifying the language we use to talk about sex. Part of what my students need is a vocabulary to talk about sex. And while it doesn’t always have to be quite so Anglo-Saxon, overly clinical language is not going to help them much, either.

Problem is, I’ll have a considerable number of students from protected backgrounds – highly Christian kids from the Cincinnati suburbs, to name just one demographic – and half of them will be freshmen. I don’t want to shock them with language to the point where that’s all they hear. Sure, they’ve all seen R movies, but that doesn’t mean they’re comfortable with profanity in the classroom. Several years ago, I had students attend a lecture on ancient Greco-Roman sexualities. It was for extra credit – luckily! – because very few of them got past the speaker’s repeated use of the word “buttfuck” in its various permutations.

One approach would be to have a discussion early on about why the authors choose to use blunt language. Ideally, that would lead into a discussion of the problems and awkwardness in how we talk about sex. I’d like to introduce the topic of communication when we discuss sexualities toward the start of the term, then return to it when we tackle sexual violence later on.

Or am I just kidding myself? Do I have to expect that half the class will just freeze up at the first appearance of “cunt”? And will they conclude that feminism is now a conspiracy of nymphomaniacs instead of the conspiracy of hairy-legged man-haters they’d believed it to be?

Read Full Post »

Following up on yesterday’s post on the romanticization of labor pain: The other evening, my sons were watching clips on YouTube, and suddenly I heard the sort of moans that made me wonder if they’d stumbled onto YouPorn instead. But no. They’d found a “Maulwurf” video illustrating how birth works. “Der kleine Maulwurf” – or “The Little Mole” – was an animated Czechoslovakian kids’ TV show with a big German following. But you don’t need to understand German or Czech to follow it, since the stories are wordless. Here’s “The Little Mole and Birth”:

It’s hard not to notice that the rabbits’ courting rituals perfectly follow human stereotypes. In the book version, the sexism is even more blatant. The male rabbit, Mümmel, has to offer gifts to the female, Mümmeline, and she first plays coy, “like lady rabbits are supposed to do.” I burst out laughing while reading it to the kids, and they got the message that this is pretty silly.

But you’ve got to love how the second and third baby bunnies come rolling out like bowling balls. Also, Mümmeline’s hairdo is wonderful; add a mustache and she could be a member of Three Dog Night. In the book, she’s got a wonderful 1970s perm. And the sun has bunny teeth.

Hasengeburt1

By the way, the picture above depicts bunny sex. Just in case you were wondering.

Hasengeburt2

Here’s the father-to-be panicking as labor begins. Note the vibrations emanating from Mümmeline’s belly.

Hasengeburt3

The assortment of medical tools is a little less alarming in the book than in the video, where the forceps can be plainly seen.

Hasengeburt4

An owl serves as a midwife, while the mole assists her. My kids figured out that the mole is using a crude stethoscope. Then the Tiger wanted to know if the opening is from Mümmeline’s butt, so that led into a good conversation about how babies actually do come out (which the Bear was a bit smug about already understanding) and a chance to discuss the correct names for all those parts. I’ve already explained this to the Tiger, who’s long been preoccupied with “how persons make persons,” but he’s a visual kid and I think he needed an illustration in order to get it.

Hasengeburt5

And then – darn it! – the book echoes the same ideas about sacrificial motherhood that I criticized in my last post. The original text says:

“Look, the first baby bunny will be here in a moment. You can already see his little snoot!” the mole cried in excitement. But it didn’t go that fast. Before a child sees the light of day, his mother has to endure some pain. She loves her child all the more when it arrives.

This story is from the late 1990s, not the 1960s! And yet it’s totally stuck in the old paradigm of suffering as the root of good mothering! I cheated a little in translating it: “And she loves her baby very much when it’s finally there.” That’s the truth as I’ve known and lived it. I was grateful for my epidurals. I experienced pretty severe pain in early labor (starting off with contractions every three minutes). Neither the pain nor the blessed relief made any difference in how much I love my kids.

I do appreciate that the story doesn’t just omit the pain altogether. My kids were interested in how bad the pain is (“very bad”) and whether the baby feels it too (“probably, because it’s a tight squeeze”). The Bear opined that it’s harder with the first baby because it’s the first time everything gets stretched, and I said yep, that’s true. They didn’t need sugarcoating (though I did mention that I got help relieving the pain). Nor did they need to hear that my love for them arose out of suffering (which might well make them feel guilty). They just needed to hear the facts in a calm, reassuring tone.

Anyway, I wouldn’t say that the Maulwurf is the ideal vehicle for sex ed, but it’s awfully cute, and it sparked some good conversations about sex and birth. I don’t believe in having “The Talk.” I think it’s far better to discuss different aspects of sexuality and reproduction as they come up, following my kids’ questions and curiosity, and keeping the responses age-appropriate. So far, so good – although the Tiger may well believe that babies come rolling out like bowling balls.

Read Full Post »

A colleague of mine, Kevin Mattson, appeared on Stephen Colbert last night. He’s one of those people who proves what a small town we live in: He works in the history department, so I know him through professional channels. He lives just two blocks away from me. I worked with his wife on the Obama campaign. She was our neighborhood captain, which meant she would call me up and persuade me that Obama’s election depended entirely on us, and I really didn’t need to grade those papers after all. Not least, they hosted multiple parties, pre- and post-election, which were loads of fun.

Anyway, Kevin has written a book about Jimmy Carter’s “malaise” speech, in which he argues that we should have heeded Carter’s call to rethink our energy use and consumerist values. And he went on Colbert to hawk it. I’ve always thought it would be hard to go head-to-head with Colbert, because as the guest you’ve got an idea to sell, while his mission is to insert loony Republican ideas for their comic effect. Kevin’s topic, the Carter administration, made a perfect foil for Colbert. Kevin is actually a very funny person in real life, but here his job was to play the straight man. Still, I thought he did a great job of holding his own.

posted with vodpod

Read Full Post »

The 15 Books Meme

My long-time friend and occasional commenter KMS tagged me with this on Facebook. As usual, I gravitate toward the long form, by which I mean I don’t know when to shut up. So I’m posting the “15 books” meme here, too, with a bunch of unsolicited editorializing. The rules are to give “A quick list of 15 books you’ve read that will always stick with you — list the first 15 you can recall in 15 minutes. Don’t take too long to think about it.” I didn’t think too long in making up the list, but now that I’ve got it, I’m still thinking.

Here’s my list, in the order I first read them, and why these books mattered to me.

1. Louise Fitzhugh, Harriet the Spy – I’ll let Harriet stand in for all my other childhood books (from the Bobbsey Twins to Little Women to Narnia) that promised a life of adventure, travels beyond North Dakota, and a world where a girls’ smarts counted for more than her looks. Unlike KMS, I can’t list the Little House books, because they were set partly in the Dakotas, a little too close to home (though I read and loved them anyway).

2. Dalton Trumbo, Johnny Got His Gun – I read this the summer after seventh grade while lying in a shady hammock. I’m not sure why my parents let me; maybe they had no idea about the book’s contents, or maybe they’d just entirely stopped paying any attention to the books I read (it was hard to keep up with me). At any rate, it put me off of war, forever.

3. Colleen McCullough, The Thorn Birds – Yes, really. This book occupied a long, long stretch of my eighth-grade English class. I read it surreptitiously under my desk. It wasn’t just a font of sex ed; it has lately come in very handy in understanding the Mark Sanford scandal.

4. Margaret Atwood, The Edible Woman – I picked this up in the college bookstore toward the end of my undergrad career. It was assigned for a course on Canadian literature that I didn’t take but soon wished I had; I raided the whole shelf for that class, scoring Margaret Laurence’s The Stone Angel and some Alice Munro stories. I fell in love with Atwood’s style, acerbic humor, and non-dogmatic, unromanticized feminism.

5. Margaret Atwood, Cat’s Eye – Of all her novels, this is my favorite. She perfectly captured Mean Girl behavior long before Hollywood discovered it. And it’s very darkly funny.

6. Emily Martin, The Woman in the Body – I probably should have included more nonfiction on the list. This book launched my interest in understanding embodied experience, which has been my main scholarly preoccupation ever since. It’s also lively and accessible.

7. Barbara Duden, The Woman under the Skin – Duden showed me that what Martin did for women’s contemporary experiences was also possible to reconstruct historically, though a good deal trickier. And so my dissertation was born.

8. Eva Heller, Beim nächsten Mann wird alles anders – The story of a young German student who bounces from one unsuitable boyfriend to another, this was the first novel I ever read independently in German. It’s light and apparently fluffy, but it’s also wonderfully witty social satire. I was so proud of myself for reading it all on my own. It also resonated with me because I’d just broken up with my grad-school boyfriend, and I needed to believe “with the next guy, everything will be different,” just as much as I needed to poke fun at the idea. The second time I read it, my now-husband and I took turns reading it aloud at bedtime. That was even more fun. (And everything really was different.)

9. Penelope Lively, Moon Tiger – All of Lively’s novels wonderfully capture the contingency of history, both personal and large-scale, and the ways those different histories collide. This one also includes a shocking ending. I’m planning to re-read it this summer, and I’m hoping it’ll be just as good, now that I know how it ends.

10. A.S. Byatt, Babel Tower – This is part of a quartet of novels that follows the sweep of British history in the mid-20th century through the figure of a smart young woman, Fredericka, and the people in her life. Babel Tower, the third of the series, is my favorite of the bunch, despite (or because of?) its disturbing mixture of sex, violence, and maternity. I read it shortly before we decided to have our first child; it both expressed and quelled some of my fears about combining motherhood with the life of the mind.

11. Robert Cohen, Inspired Sleep – The main character, Bonnie, is one of the most convincing female characters that I’ve ever seen in a book written by a man. Her insomnia perfectly echoed mine during early motherhood – and convinced me that I either was not completely nuts, or at least had lots of company in my craziness. (Another cheat: Stephen McCauley’s True Enough, which I read around the same time – early 2001 – did much the same for me, with another marvelously loopy female lead.)

12. Barbara Kingsolver, The Poisonwood Bible – While I like almost everything Kingsolver has written (except Prodigal Summer, which is too preachy), this is her most rich and nuanced novel. The mother’s hard choices still haunt me. I read it during the penultimate phase of my dissertation, and I was so captivated, it derailed my writing.

13. Jonathan Franzen, The Corrections – I almost refused to read this because of the hype. Then, one day in Berlin, I ran out of light reading and it was the only promising English title in the little bookshop where I was sought my fix. Franzen hooked me first on his dry wit and then on his ultimately compassionate take on his characters and their foibles. This was during the final-most phase of dissertating. To this day I blame Franzen for almost making me miss my own defense.

14. Audrey Niffenegger, The Time Traveler’s Wife – Of all the books on my list, this is the one I’m least likely to revisit. I read it while my husband was almost mortally ill. For me, the book is neither about time travel nor transcendent love. It’s the most vivid depiction I’ve seen of the cascade of catastrophic events leading from illness to decline to death. It haunts me and I wish I’d never read it.

15. Ian McEwan, Saturday – I appreciated how deftly McEwan handles his post-9/11 theme, but mostly I was drawn in by the suspense and the characters. On Chesil Beach is just as good in its own way – I guess I’m cheating on my 15-book limit again! – but since I have to choose, I’ll say Saturday resonates on more levels.

I’ll stop before I cheat again. I can think of lots of non-fiction, a bunch of classic novels (Wuthering Heights and Jane Eyre fired my adolescent imagination), and more childhood favorites. And shouldn’t the Moosewood Cookbook be on my list, too? Oh, wait, I am cheating again.

I’ll break the rules one last time by refusing to tag another 15 people (as the meme demands), but if you want to leave your own list in comments or link to it elsewhere, please do!

Read Full Post »

Daisy at Daisy’s Dead Air has put up a class privilege meme. It was originally intended to be a classroom exercise (full instructions are here), but Daisy’s discomfort in completing the exercise even anonymously online has convinced me: It’s as likely to shame the poor kids as the rich kids. That’s surely not its intent, but when you’re teaching, you’d better think of the consequences.

Good intentions alone are never enough. I once led a classroom discussion on gender and work in which a bunch of college gals vented about the piggish middle-age men who felt entitled to hit on them when they worked retail or restaurants. I thought we’d had a productive discussion. But at the end, after everyone else had left, a woman who’d been very quiet said: “Look. I don’t even know where to begin with these people. I know what it’s like to earn my money by literally shoveling shit.” It was a pedagogical FAIL for me. For her, it was an awkward and probably painful experience.

So, I’m not sure what I can glean from doing this meme, either, except that I think it’s important to talk about class, and maybe my experience shows how class privilege can come in different flavors. Here’s what I came up with. The italics indicate my editorializing – a bent that in itself might indicate a certain degree of privileged. (The most dispossessed people are unlikely to assume that anyone else cares what they have to say.) The bold statements are the ones that hold true for me:

  • If your father went to college before you started
  • If your father finished college before you started
  • If your mother went to college before you started
  • If your mother finished college before you started (college was taken for granted for all three of us kids)
  • If you have any relative who is an attorney, physician, or professor (my paternal grandfather was a country doctor; I had older cousins who were lawyers, doctors, and chemists, as well as farmers and teachers)
  • If your family was the same or higher class than your high school teachers (both my folks were teachers – though at annual salaries of less than $12,000 in the mid-1970s)
  • If you had a computer at home when you were growing up (no, but that would’ve required devoting a room to a mainframe! I’m just that old)
  • If you had your own computer at home when you were growing up (no, but my eight-year-younger sister did during high school)
  • If you had more than 50 books at home when you were growing up
  • If you had more than 500 books at home when you were growing up (pretty sure we did; most likely the majority were mine)
  • If you were read children’s books by a parent when you were growing up (every night – and practically every night my dad fell asleep – but hey, that was an incentive for me to learn to read so we could finally finish the stories)
  • If you ever had lessons of any kind as a child or a teen
  • If you had more than two kinds of lessons as a child or a teen (French horn for a year, plus six weeks of piano – lessons required a sixty-mile round trip to the next largest town, so mostly my mom taught me piano, then I taught myself)
  • If the people in the media who dress and talk like you were portrayed positively (well, at least until Fargo came out)
  • If you had a credit card with your name on it before college
  • If you had or will have less than $5000 in student loans when you graduate (just under – in mid-1980s dollars)
  • If you had or will have no student loans when you graduate
  • If you went to a private high school (there were none where I lived)
  • If you went to summer camp (music camp and Bible camp!)
  • If you had a private tutor (but if I’d needed it, my parents would’ve made it happen)
  • (US students only) If you have been to Europe more than once as a child or teen (I went once, with a touring band, when I was 16, and already thought that was massively privileged)
  • (International question) If you have been to the US more than once as a child or teen
  • If your family vacations involved staying at hotels rather than KOA or at relatives homes (we crashed pretty shamelessly with relatives, but where none were available, we stayed in motels because my dad suffered from Crohn’s disease and needed a nearby bathroom)
  • If all of your clothing has been new (heck no! that would be plain stupid)
  • If your parents gave you a car that was not a hand-me-down from them (I got a 1974 Maverick from them in 1985, and called myself lucky)
  • If there was original art in your house as a child or teen (by my grandma, who sometimes let me experiment with her paints)
  • If you had a phone in your room
  • If your parent owned their own house or apartment when you were a child or teen (nearly everyone did, in Medina, North Dakota, even if was just a trailer – but we had the biggest house in town, a wonderful old white elephant)
  • If you had your own room as a child or teen (always, until I went to college)
  • If you participated in an SAT/ACT prep course (they barely existed in 1980, and I didn’t even know that the SAT was coming up until friends clued me in; I missed the PSAT altogether and I’m still pissed I didn’t get a crack at National Merit Scholar!)
  • If you had your own cell phone in High School (not yet invented – is this also an old-fart meme??)
  • If you had your own TV as a child or teen
  • If you opened a mutual fund or IRA in High School or College (also not on the radar circa 1980, and WTF is up with capitalizing high school and college?)
  • If you have ever flown anywhere on a commercial airline
  • If you ever went on a cruise with your family
  • If your parents took you to museums and art galleries as a child or teen (there aren’t really any in North Dakota, unless you count various pioneer historical exhibits, and on our big trip to California the highlights were Disneyland and Johnny Carson)
  • If you were unaware of how much heating bills were for your family (but my folks also had to shovel coal in my early years)

[By the way, if your background is so poor that none of the above applies, Daisy has another checklist that captures serious hardship.]

Compared to Daisy and many others, I’ve enjoyed heaps of class privilege. But looking at the pattern that emerges from my answers, I notice it’s a little complicated. I’ve experienced tremendous educational privilege. I was born the child of two teachers, both of whose mothers were also schoolteachers. My mom owned a book entitled something like Games to Make Your Child Smarter. (You be the judge whether it worked!) My dad taught music, so he was happy to spring for lessons as long as I practiced.

On the other hand, my parents’ combined household income was less than $20,000 in the early 1970s. That’s just how teachers were paid in North Dakota. My dad had some family money as a cushion, but times were tight when his health forced him to retire from teaching in 1976, leaving my mom the sole wage-earner. My grandpa was a doctor, all right, but he served the sort of clientele where payment was often in some form of barter. He was still able to invest some money in Standard Oil around 1900, and that became the aforementioned cushion for our family.

When it came time for college, I was clueless about the process, and so was my family. But when my folks moved us out to California, they took care to find a decent (though not top-flight) school district. I was a high school (not High School) junior. My classmates (not my parents or counselor) nudged me to take the SAT on time, and to apply to one fancy-pants school – which admitted me and then coughed up generous financial aid when divorce decimated my mom’s finances and put my dad out of the picture for a while.

If there’s a more general point to be drawn from my answers, it’s that educational privilege is largely fungible for economic privilege. It won’t trump it, but it sure acts as a buffer. I may have had an English/social studies teacher in junior high who spelled subpoena as “supena,” but my mom made up for it at home, as did heaps of books. And educational privilege tends to beget more of the same; after surviving some piss-poor teachers in North Dakota as well as benefiting from a few great ones, I went to some of the best schools in the country for both undergrad and grad school. (They weren’t just prestigious; I really did get a great education.) I didn’t know the right etiquette and I was always dressed wrong, but I only came in contact with those “inadequacies” because I’d already been catapulted into the milieu of the very rich.

Don’t anyone tell me I earned these privileges (although I did have to bestir myself to finish my Ph.D.). If I’m smart, it’s due to genetic serendipity and my mom’s silly book. If I’d been born into a family that didn’t care about education, I would’ve done well to go to college at all. I was a lazy student until college and am still a horrible procrastinator. That’s the thing about privilege: It compensates for our failings and lets us do well despite our flaws. If you don’t have any of it, the world is a pretty unforgiving place.

And yes, my boys are growing up in a house full of books. But the count is probably closer to 5000 than to 500. So the pattern repeats itself, every generation accumulating a little more cultural capital.

If your father went to college before you started

If your father finished college before you started

If your mother went to college before you started

If your mother finished college before you started

If you have any relative who is an attorney, physician, or professor.

If your family was the same or higher class than your high school teachers

If you had a computer at home when you were growing up

If you had your own computer at home when you were growing up

If you had more than 50 books at home when you were growing up

If you had more than 500 books at home when you were growing up

If were read children’s books by a parent when you were growing up

If you ever had lessons of any kind as a child or a teen

If you had more than two kinds of lessons as a child or a teen

If the people in the media who dress and talk like you were portrayed positively

If you had a credit card with your name on it before college

If you had or will have less than $5000 in student loans when you graduate

If you had or will have no student loans when you graduate

If you went to a private high school

If you went to summer camp

If you had a private tutor

(US students only) If you have been to Europe more than once as a child or teen

(International question) If you have been to the US more than once as a child or teen

If your family vacations involved staying at hotels rather than KOA or at relatives homes

If all of your clothing has been new

If your parents gave you a car that was not a hand-me-down from them

If there was original art in your house as a child or teen

If you had a phone in your room

If your parent owned their own house or apartment when you were a child or teen

If you had your own room as a child or teen

If you participated in an SAT/ACT prep course

If you had your own cell phone in High School

If you had your own TV as a child or teen

If you opened a mutual fund or IRA in High School or College

If you have ever flown anywhere on a commercial airline

If you ever went on a cruise with your family

If your parents took you to museums and art galleries as a child or teen

If you were unaware of how much heating bills were for your family

Read Full Post »

My bedtime reading these days is a novel by Emily Listfield, Waiting to Surface. I’m only a few chapters into it so far, but it’s making me wonder how well we can ever really know the people we love. The book’s premise is that the husband of the protagonist, Sarah, disappears without a trace at a moment when they are estranged from each other and on a fast track to divorce.

While she’s trying to digest the initial, nauseating news of her husband Todd’s disappearance, Sarah reflects on something that resonated with me even though I’m pretty confident I’ll never go through a comparable experience. (Listfield apparently based the book on her own real-life experience – a fact I’m trying hard to repress because it so horrifies me.)

People offer up fragments of themselves to friends, spouses, lovers, leaving each person to create the remaining whole according to what they have in hand, forensic scientists all. But no two pieces are precisely alike, some barely have any resemblance at all. Love, it seems, and understanding, are largely acts of inference.

(Emily Listfield, Waiting to Surface, p. 37)

Since I don’t watch CSI but I did spend enough time in archives to warp my personality, the only metaphor that doesn’t work for me in this passage is the “forensic scientist” bit. I’m picturing instead the archaeologist, holding shards of a life. Or even more pertinently, the historian, skimming through reams of documents that time’s ravages have rendered fragile and frustratingly incomplete. The history of emotions is especially hard to reconstruct; in my dissertation research, for instance, I typically had to rely on doctors’ accounts of how women reacted to giving birth, sometimes reading the doctors’ descriptions against the grain.

We assume that the people we know are a whole lot transparent than that. Yes, people lie. But that’s not what Sarah/Listfield is saying. She’s insisting that it’s in the very nature of relationships that we cannot fathom the other in his or her fullness.

In this novel, this unknowability and ambiguity lays the ground for (apparent) tragedy. Even in the absence of high drama, however, I think that our fragmentary understanding helps explain how a partner can demand a divorce, or have an affair, or suddenly declare themselves unhappy with the couple’s division of labor – or maybe all of the above – and their partner may be blindsided.

Yet I suspect that recognizing love as an act of inference explains more than just the death of love. It may also hold the promise of greater happiness? Might it also be a call for humility toward our partners, which could liberate us (by, for instance, erasing the expectation that we’ll always automatically be on the same page)? Might it open the possibility of continually discovering new and wonderful aspects in them? Might it suggest that terminal boredom in a marriage or other long-term relationship just means we’ve closed our eyes to how our partners are fundamentally unknowable?

I don’t know the answer to those questions, but they remind me of Esther Perel’s prescriptions for keeping a marriage erotically alive in her book, Mating in Captivity: Unlocking Erotic Intelligence. Much of her message is to cultivate a healthy distance and mystery. What Listfield suggests is that this mystery is always there, always present. Our task is to recognize it and celebrate it.

Perfect crocuses (which have withered since I took this picture behind my house). Relate this to the post as you will.

Read Full Post »

Books: Name the Anti-Aphrodisiacs

Oh oh. Picking up on a post on Pandagon on the worst books to read while having sex, figleaf is turning this into a meme. Books? Sex? How could I resist? (Excuse me while I fan myself.)

Note: The question is “what are the worst books to read during sex?” If you decide to pick up on this meme, you are not allowed to say “why would anyone in their right mind read during sex?” Auguste at Pandagon already put the kibosh on that. So no cheating!

Now, figleaf put Hegel’s Phänomenologie des Geistes on his no-fly list, and while I wouldn’t personally recommend Hegel – he makes your blood drain into your brain and then freeze, never to flow southward again – I can vouch for the eroticism of reading German out loud in bed. I know that goes against the grain of every stereotype about erotic languages, but hey, my Italian stops at “una camera con doccia.” (Which, come to think of it, could also lead to rather nice things.) There’s something intimate and vulnerable about reading to your partner in their language, especially/even if you’re not terribly adept at it. I wouldn’t necessarily recommend halting the proceedings to do this, I’m just saying it can be a surprisingly good warm-up. High-quality German chick lit works rather well, believe it or not. (Oh, why do I have the feeling no one is going to believe me?!? And if you do, that you’re going to think I’m much kinkier than you ever suspected?)

German history, on the other hand, is right out. I’ve had a copy of my doctoral advisor’s book, Absolute Destruction, next to my nightstand for awhile. It’s a very smart history of Germany militarism during its Imperial period. If you get off on that, you’ve got a paraphilia way beyond the bounds of what I personally would consider healthy.

Ditto for Ian McEwan’s The Innocent, a spy story set in Cold War Berlin which culminates in scenes of such horror and gore that no other author could have kept me on board. I won’t detail them here, because you might not want the spoilers. Except: Shortly before things come apart (all too literally), there’s a scene where the clueless young British title character is doggedly losing his innocence with his German girlfriend. He goes down on her with such concentration and wonder that – even though I only read it silently to myself – it, um, led shortly thereafter to certain non-fictional inspirations. ‘Nuff said.

More surprisingly, Sungold the Lust Kitten was totally disappointed in Jane Smiley’s Ten Days in the Hills. It was billed this exhilaratingly transgressive erotic romp. I love Smiley, but darn it, this book was chock-a-block with chatter about Hollywood. Every once in a while there would be a sex scene featuring the word “cunt.” I guess was the transgressive part. (Ooooh! Naughty words!) But the temperature just never rose above tepid for me, even though I was shamelessly looking for the steamy bits.

And apropos Hollywood: Just about anything I read for work is a guaranteed lust-killer, but the last thing I read tonight for tomorrow’s class on psychoanalytis feminisms was Laura Mulvey’s classic essay in feminist film theory, “Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema.” In discussing the phallocentric structures of classic Hollywood films, Mulvey writes:

It is said that analzying pleasure, or beauty, destroys it. That is the intention of this article.

Granted, this article is no doubt (as Amy Poehler said in her alter ego as Hillary Clinton) a “boner shrinker.” (And not because it’s a feminist manifesto, but because it assumes you understand Lacan, which – god help me – I don’t.)

But. I’m not so sure Mulvey’s entirely right about pleasure and analysis. Sure, there’s a point of no return beyond which analysis is disruptive – and frankly and wondrously impossible. But as a form of flirtation? There’s a level between analysis and appreciation where describing a partner’s charms … and how I might want to enjoy them … can be all about pleasure.

Read Full Post »

Cliché-lit cat from I Can Has Cheezburger?

I first saw this meme at Sugar Mag’s but can’t link her because her blog has disappeared! (Where are you, Sugar Mag?!) I bumped into it again via Brandy at Moue Magazine.

Supposedly the average American has read just six of these books. Could be; plenty of people don’t read at all, which would tend to drag down the average. But I’m guessing nearly everyone I know has read a lot more than just six.

No one seems know who originally picked the books or why. The list is partly just plain nonsensical. Why list Hamlet separately and then also include the complete works of Shakespeare? Why pull a similar trick with C.S. Lewis?

It’s a curious list in terms of its selections and omissions, too. Why all the Austen and Dickens? Where are the post-war big boys like Norman Mailer and Philip Roth and Saul Bellows and John Updike? Where are some of the more recent literary luminaries like Don DeLillo (I’ve read a fair amount of him even though I’m not a huge fan) or Jonathan Franzen’s The Corrections or Barbara Kingsolver’s The Poisonwood Bible (to name two novels that totally derailed work on my dissertation at the time)? And The DaVinci Code just makes everyone go WTF.

It’s fun anyway. It tickles my inner nerd. Plus, editorializing is just irresistible. Please feel free to editorialize right back at me.

And if you do the meme, I’d love it you link back to it in comments, okey dokey?

The rules are:

1) Bold what you have read
2) Put in italics what you have started to read
3) Put an asterisk next to what you intend to read

1 Pride and Prejudice – Jane Austen (I love Austin and so does this list.)
2 The Lord of the Rings – JRR Tolkien (See The Hobbit, below.)
3 Jane Eyre – Charlotte Bronte (Might this be the origin of my weakness for enigmatic, dark-haired men?)
4 Harry Potter series – JK Rowling (I’m probably the only person in America who hasn’t read a single page of it – or seen the movies.)
5 To Kill a Mockingbird – Harper Lee
6 The Bible (When I was about in fifth grade, there was a Bible in our bathroom and I tried reading it start to finish. I got bogged down in Leviticus. Purity rules, anyone? Also around that time, I read Revelations under the covers at night by flashlight. Not recommended.)
7 Wuthering Heights – Emily Bronte
8 Nineteen Eighty Four – George Orwell (My high school never assigned this, so I read it on my own steam shortly thereafter – in the summer 1984, in fact. I don’t know if that made it more or less chilling.)
9 His Dark Materials – Philip Pullman
10 Great Expectations – Charles Dickens
11 Little Women – Louisa May Alcott (I read this multiple times as a kid and wept harder every time when Beth died.)
12 Tess of the D’Urbervilles – Thomas Hardy
13 Catch 22 – Joseph Heller
14 Complete Works of Shakespeare (I’ve read a bunch of the more famous play but nowhere near all. I started with Romeo and Juliet when I was 13 and had the chicken pox.)
15 Rebecca – Daphne Du Maurier
16 The Hobbit – JRR Tolkien (I really tried to get into this. All my friends liked it. There were certain cute nerdy boys who were completely fixated on Tolkien. And I just couldn’t get involved in the storyline. I bailed after about 150 pages.)
17 Birdsong – Sebastian Faulks
18 Catcher in the Rye – JD Salinger
19 The Time Traveller’s Wife – Audrey Niffenegger (I read this for “diversion” when my husband had just survived multiple close brushes with death, and – even though I also kept accidentally picking up novels with a cancer theme around that time – this one disturbed me more than anything else. The central male character’s trajectory – the time traveler edging ever closer to calamity – captures the dynamics of catastrophic illness and the ICU with terrible, perfect clarity. Even though nary a hospital appears in the story, it’s a poetic and horrible depiction of what actually awaits most of us time-bound mortals. *Shudder.*)
20 Middlemarch – George Eliot
21 Gone With The Wind – Margaret Mitchell
22. The Great Gatsby- F. Scott Fitzgerald
23 Bleak House – Charles Dickens
24 War and Peace – Leo Tolstoy (Oh, this was one of my biggest bail-out moments ever. It was assigned for a class my last year of college. I got within 100 pages of the end. And then I got busy with final projects and never finished. Isn’t that awful?)
25 The Hitch Hiker’s Guide to the Galaxy – Douglas Adams (All the cute nerdy guys liked this, too, but since I actually enjoyed it, I read the whole set.)
26 Brideshead Revisited – Evelyn Waugh
27 Crime and Punishment – Fyodor Dostoyevsky
28 Grapes of Wrath – John Steinbeck (I’d like to re-read this one, as well as East of Eden)
29 Alice in Wonderland – Lewis Carroll
30 The Wind in the Willows – Kenneth Grahame
31 Anna Karenina – Leo Tolstoy
32 David Copperfield – Charles Dickens
33 Chronicles of Narnia – CS Lewis
34 Emma – Jane Austen
35 Persuasion – Jane Austen
36 The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe – CS Lewis
*37 The Kite Runner – Khaled Hosseini (This one’s in my to-read pile.)
38 Captain Corelli’s Mandolin – Louis De Bernieres
39 Memoirs of a Geisha – Arthur Golden
40 Winnie the Pooh – AA Milne (I read the whole thing out loud to my son, the Bear – who resembles Pooh not in the least)
41 Animal Farm – George Orwell (I think I was in sixth grade the first time, but I re-read it a few years later when I was old enough to grasp the political allegory)
42 The Da Vinci Code – Dan Brown (Everyone who does this meme wonders why this book is on the list. Maybe because it became part of the cultural fabric for a while?)
43 One Hundred Years of Solitude – Gabriel Garcia Marquez (I read this over 20 years ago but still think of the plague of sleeplessness sometimes when I’ve got insomnia – oh, and during my first pregnancy, I thought of the babies born with the tail of a pig more often than was smart.)
44 A Prayer for Owen Meany – John Irving (This book is forever tangled up with the end of my first, preliminary research trip to Germany during grad school. I started reading it while I was breaking up with my then-boyfriend, and I finished it on a Pakistani Air plane from Amsterdam to New York. Under other circumstances, I might have sneered at the ending as emotionally manipulative. As it was, I wept loudly for about a half hour, right in the middle of that airplane, obviously mourning a lot more than poor Owen Meany.)
45 The Woman in White – Wilkie Collins
46 Anne of Green Gables – LM Montgomery
47 Far From The Madding Crowd – Thomas Hardy
48 The Handmaid’s Tale – Margaret Atwood (I love everything Atwood has written. This isn’t my very favorite – I think Cat’s Eye or The Robber Bride top my list – I re-read it last fall in order to teach it and was amazed at how presciently Atwood described a mix between the Taliban and the Religious Right today.)
49 Lord of the Flies – William Golding
50 Atonement – Ian McEwan (I think McEwan just keeps getting better, and he already ranks with Atwood in my literary cosmos. So, while I really enjoyed Atonement, I was totally captivated by Saturday and On Chesil Beach.)
51 Life of Pi – Yann Martel
52 Dune – Frank Herbert (Here’s another one from the cute, nerdy boy collection that I couldn’t really get into.)
53 Cold Comfort Farm – Stella Gibbons
54 Sense and Sensibility – Jane Austen
55 A Suitable Boy – Vikram Seth
56 The Shadow of the Wind – Carlos Ruiz Zafon
57 A Tale Of Two Cities – Charles Dickens
58 Brave New World – Aldous Huxley
59 The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-time – Mark Haddon (This is such a fascinating book, funny and touching and suspenseful. I’m sure I’ll read it again.)
60 Love In The Time Of Cholera – Gabriel Garcia Marquez
61 Of Mice and Men – John Steinbeck
62 Lolita – Vladimir Nabokov
63 The Secret History – Donna Tartt (Her second book, The Little Friend, was wonderful too – another compulsive page turner. It cured me of ever wanting to try meth – ever. Not that I was planning to.)
64 The Lovely Bones – Alice Sebold (I thought this was haunting and wonderful, not overhyped in the least)
65 Count of Monte Cristo – Alexandre Dumas
66 On The Road – Jack Kerouac
67 Jude the Obscure – Thomas Hardy (But don’t ask me to reproduce the plot line; by now it’s pretty, um, obscure to me.)
68. Bridget Jones’s Diary – Helen Fielding (And y’know, I loved it. Sometimes silly comedy is just the best.)
69 Midnight’s Children – Salman Rushdie
70 Moby Dick – Herman Melville (Uh-oh. I was supposed to read this late in my college career but hated it and just got bogged down. The shame!)
71 Oliver Twist – Charles Dickens
72 Dracula – Bram Stoker
73 The Secret Garden – Frances Hodgson Burnett
74 Notes From A Small Island – Bill Bryson
75 Ulysses – James Joyce (But I have a friend who read it; does that count?)
76 The Bell Jar – Sylvia Plath (I read this when I was maybe 12, and I wish I knew why the adults around me allowed it. I was way to young for it. But I was also totally fascinated – and still am – by Plath’s talent and her trainwreck life.)
77 Swallows and Amazons – Arthur Ransome
78 Germinal – Emile Zola
79 Vanity Fair – William Makepeace Thackeray
80 Possession – AS Byatt (Another favorite author of mine – but I liked Babel Tower best.)
81 A Christmas Carol – Charles Dickens
82 Cloud Atlas – David Mitchell
83 The Color Purple – Alice Walker (This is de rigeuer for women’s/gender studies scholars. I love it anyway.)
84 The Remains of the Day – Kazuo Ishiguro
85 Madame Bovary – Gustave Flaubert (I read this for a history seminar in the college where we read oodles of nineteenth-century European novels – that’s where I read Germinal and Great Expectations, too – but this was my fave of the bunch. What I most remember from the discussion: my professor discussing what Flaubert meant when he referred to cold feet in bed. I think I should re-read this now that I’m a putative adult.)
86 A Fine Balance – Rohinton Mistry
87 Charlotte’s Web – EB White
88 The Five People You Meet In Heaven – Mitch Albom
89 Adventures of Sherlock Holmes – Sir Arthur Conan Doyle
90 The Faraway Tree Collection
91 Heart of Darkness – Joseph Conrad (Um, this is in the Moby Dick category for me.)
92 The Little Prince – Antoine De Saint-Exupery
93 The Wasp Factory – Iain Banks
94 Watership Down – Richard Adams (This goes back to junior high for me; I loved it at the time.)
95 A Confederacy of Dunces – John Kennedy Toole (I read this with bronchitis and a high fever; light delirium meshes well with it.)
96 A Town Like Alice – Nevil Shute (I’ve never heard of this one and have to wonder: where is On the Beach?)
97 The Three Musketeers – Alexandre Dumas
98 Hamlet – William Shakespeare
99 Charlie and the Chocolate Factory – Roald Dahl (My older son discovered this book about a year ago, too; it’s so fun to see him adore it.)
100 Les Miserables – Victor Hugo

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 37 other followers

%d bloggers like this: