• anna j. clutterbuck-cook
  • contact
  • curriculum vitae
  • find me elsewhere
  • marilyn ross memorial book prize

the feminist librarian

the feminist librarian

Category Archives: book reviews

booknotes: when we were outlaws

08 Thursday Dec 2011

Posted by Anna Clutterbuck-Cook in book reviews

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

being the change, feminism, gender and sexuality, history, memoir, politics

In many ways, Jeanne Córdova’s memoir, When We Were Outlaws: A Memoir of Love and Revolution (Midway, Fla.: Spinster’s Ink, 2011), couldn’t be more different than the last memoir of the 70s I reviewed here at the feminist librarian: Patricia Harmon’s Arms Wide Open. Harmon’s memoir told the tale of a self-trained hippie midwife who moved with sons and male lovers through several different rural communes before entering medical school for formal nurse-midwifery training. Jeanne Córdova, by contrast, spent the 1970s in the Los Angeles area free-lancing as a journalist and activist in what were then referred to as the women’s and gay liberation movements. A self-identified butch, she came of age as part of the lesbian bar culture of the 50s and 60s, then discovered gay liberation and feminism in 70s. Córdova was the founding editor of The Lesbian Tide newsmagazine and the human rights editor of the L.A. Free Press, interviewing radicals on both the left and the right on the run from the law. As she observes in her introduction, “this memoir visits many outlaws, some freedom fighters, and a few who would be called terrorists … I needed to know and sort out these outlaws in my mind in order to discover the perimeters of my own moral compass … Outlaws takes place at the intersection of shadow and shade that differentiate between persona and principle” (vii).

Yet I found myself, while reading Outlaws, thinking often of Harmon’s memoir and the parallels between both works in scope and tone. And in the relationship (in text, at least) between the authors and their own personal and political pasts. Like Arms Wide Open, When We Were Outlaws seeks to tell a specific slice of the authors life, rather than starting with childhood and moving through the years in an orderly progression. Both authors chose, as their time-frame, the turbulent years of the 1970s when the heady, optimistic social change movements of the late 1960s led to more complicated lived realities for those who championed leftist causes and a counterculture way of life. Córdova focuses on her life and work between 1974-1975, with some flashbacks and flash forwards to help us make sense of the dense web of associations — political and personal — that characterized that time, both for Córdova specifically and her fellow activists in what was then called “the Movement” more broadly. Like Arms, Outlaws gives us an in-the-moment perspective on the life of someone struggling to live out her political convictions in her personal life. For Jeanne Córdova this means an up-close, and in many ways unshrinking, view of her involvement with lesbian separatist politics in relation to the gay liberation movement more broadly. It also means intimate portraits of her trial-and-error practice of open relationships, as she paints a portrait of her involvement with two women — the long-term relationship in which she and her partner have negotiated non-monogamy, and the quickening of an intense love affair with a fellow activist that threatens the stability of her more permanent ties.

It has become a commonplace, since almost before they began, to identify the leftist social movements of the 60s and 70s as enthusiasms of youth, as romantic idealism (or destructive self-absorption, depending on your political persuasion) that necessarily gave way to realistic politicking and material concerns. In some ways this is true. Many of the individuals who populate When We Were Outlaws are young adults in or just out of undergraduate or graduate school programs, young professionals or struggling under-employed twentysomethings. They don’t (yet) have dependents to care for, and are geographically mobile, often living on the economic edge. They’re at the point in their lives where they’re developing a sense of what kind of life they want for themselves and those they care about — what kind of work they find meaningful, what values they hold dear, what kind of relationships they want to build and maintain. Often, their answers (however tentative) to these questions are at odds with the answers their parents or the activists of the previous generations gave.

Yet despite the youth (and youthful perspective) of its protagonist, I would argue that Outlaws pushes us to re-examine our assumptions that the moral dilemmas and vision for a better future that Córdova and her cohort were immersed in are solely the province of the young — impetuosity that will necessarily give way as one grows into more seasoned adulthood. One of the most interesting narrative threads in Outlaws traces the relationship between Córdova and her political mentor/substitute parental figure Morris Kight. Kight was a mover and shaker in L.A. gay political activism, someone with whom Córdova worked closely and fell out publicly over the place of women in the gay liberation movement. Their differences aren’t so much conservative elders vs. radical youth but something more complicated — a difference in experience, of power, of privilege. In the very personal (yet also political) struggle between Kight and Córdova we can see all the complications inherent in working for social justice, complications that don’t get, well, less complicated — or less relevant — as we grow older.

Córdova reflects back on her younger self with a sometimes-critical, yet always compassionate eye. While the narrative style is “novelized memoir” (to use the author’s own choice of phrase), one nevertheless gets the sense that the author both knows well her protagonist’s faults and cares very deeply for her younger self, no matter how flawed her present self may find that person of the past. “I was not born knowing how to love,” is how she open’s her introduction. “It came to me late in life” (vii). In the pages of Outlaws we see her be cruel to lovers, ideologically ruthless, politically short-sighted, and cripplingly addicted to booze and prescription drugs. At the same time, we see a heart-breakingly young woman who’s been physically evicted from her childhood home (for bringing home a lover), is living with serious and intermittently-treated depression, experiences chronic under-employment, and who nonetheless is working hard to build a meaningful life for herself and a better future for us all. Whether you agree with the young Córdova’s means and visionary ends doesn’t necessarily detract from the import of such a closely-rendered self-portrait.

I suspect we’re only in the early years of a richly textured new wave of 70s-era autobiography which will shed new light on the particularity of growing into adulthood during a period when even the most fundamental of questions concerning how we organize our personal and political lives seemed to be in real, material flux. I am also happy (quite selfishly, I admit!) about the way these personal perspectives will provide unique, and accessible, primary source material for historians of the period, even while many historical sources remain in private hands (and therefore often invisible-to-researchers). Córdova’s memoir would provide a rich jumping-off point in a course that sought to explore this era in all its rich historical realities — and I hope it prompts many readers to re-examine what they think they know about the political contours of the decade.


This review was made possible by the generousity of Lynn Ballen at Spinster’s Ink who provided me with an advance review copy of the book. The book is available now for purchase online or at your brick-and-mortar bookstore of choice. You can read more about the memoir and its author at www.jeannecordova.com.

booknotes: see me naked

30 Wednesday Nov 2011

Posted by Anna Clutterbuck-Cook in book reviews

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

gender and sexuality, religion, the body, thesis

One of the books I consulted for my thesis was Amy Frykholm’s Rapture Culture: Left Behind in Evangelical America (Oxford U.P., 2004). In Rapture, Frykholm traveled around the nation interviewing readers of Tim LaHaye’s Left Behind series, exploring the effect of rapture narratives in Evangelical culture. Frykholm — who grew up Evangelical and now attends an Episcopal church — studies her former subculture with a keen and empathetic eye. In her latest book, See Me Naked: Stories of Sexual Exile in American Christianity (Beacon Press, 2011), Frykholm turns to personal narratives of sexuality, embodiment, and Christian spirituality. The slim volume contains nine profiles of Protestant Christians struggling in various ways to integrate their physical, sexual selves with their concepts of Christian “purity” or righteousness.

As much as possible, Frykholm backs away from any larger-scale analysis in the interest of allowing her subjects to make meaning of their own lives. However, it seems clear that all of her interviewees have struggled to integrate their sexual selves with their theological beliefs. Some because they experience same-sex desires, some because they’re struggling to live up to demanding Christian ideologies of chastity or modesty, some because anything associated with bodily desires became the enemy.

One of my favorite essays was less about sexual activity or relationships, per se, than it was about our sense of embodiment and the sensual experience of being and expressing oneself in flesh. “Monica” recounts her experience of attending a life-drawing class while studying abroad — an experience that challenged her understanding of propriety and ultimately helped her re-evaluate her expectations of what beautiful bodies should look like and how women’s bodies should behave. At first repulsed by the normal-looking nude model (to the point where she almost dropped the class), Monica perseveres and eventually exhibits her drawings in the college library upon returning to her home campus:

Monica heard two things in the comments [about her art show]. She heard the same fear and revulsion that she had experienced in herself when first encountering the model. It was a disgust that human beings exist in this form … she also heard in the comments that Christianity and nakedness were incompatible — that somehow being clothed and being Christian were necessary to each other (84).

At that point in her own journey, Monica has grown enough to be critical of these assumptions, and by the end of the piece has challenged herself to volunteer as a nude model for community life drawing classes — an act of bravery that seems to be very intertwined with her developing sense of spiritual practice.

What I think may surprise non-Christian readers of these narratives is their familiarity: in many ways, the discomfort with embodiment is a malaise that is more American than Christian, though obviously practicing Christians will express their struggles in theological language. The individuals here struggle with unrealistic beauty standards, with the commercialization of sexuality, with questions of attraction and desire and what their bodies want versus what they’re being taught they should want by their parents, youth leaders, peers. The process of coming into one’s own bodily self and finding a voice for our desires is rarely an easy one, regardless of the faith tradition we’re raised in.

On the other hand, See Me Naked does put those struggles in a particularly Christian theological and social context, and illuminate some of the ways Christian language — particularly theology which seeks to construct rigid definitions of “right” and “wrong” sexual expression — fails believers. Reading stories about young women starving themselves to the brink of death in the name of “modesty” and young men told their interest in pornography was sinful, brought to mind the recent post, How Modesty Made Me Fat, by Sierra of No Longer Quivering in which she writes:

Modesty made me “fat” because it defined my relationship with my body in terms of appearance. Not action. Not gratitude. Not the joy of movement. Just appearance. It also defined my relationship with men as one of predator and prey. It was my job to hide from men so that their sex drive would lie dormant, like a sleeping wolf. But if that wolf ever awakened, it was not because it had been sleeping for a long time and its circadian rhythm kicked in, or it was just naturally hungry. It was my fault because I had done something to “bait” the wolf. Just by being visibly female, or by moving in “unladylike” ways. You cannot consider women full human beings unless you recognize that their lives do not revolve around the male sex drive. Modesty is a philosophy that dehumanizes. It incites constant fear and vigilance in one sex while excusing the other of all responsibility. It’s immoral.”

See Me Naked offers similar examples of the way in which our religious language falls perilously short in its ostensible effort to increase well-being for all. Naked tells stories of women starving themselves close to death for the sake of being pure, stories of women and men who feel lost when faced with the task of integrating queer attractions with their Christian faith, and stories of men who are taught to hate and fear their feelings of sexual desires as something inherently impure or incompatible with living a righteous life.

At the very end of See Me Naked, Frykholm does offer some reflections on an alternative ethic of sexuality, one that I think is worth contemplating whether or not you’re interested in the explicitly Christian language in which she couches her suggestions. “True, deep, real pleasure is an avenue to the Holy,” Frykholm writes. “Through discernment, wonder, and aliveness we will know what real pleasure is … and when we sense true pleasure, we will trust it and be able to act bodily in it and with it.” She recounts the counsel of a parent to her soon-to-be adolescent daughter, “Your body will know more pleasure than you can even now imagine. You are going through a period when your body is going to learn to feel pleasure, and you will be amazed” (176)  While I’d argue that children, too, have the bodily capacity to feel pleasure — though of a different kind than adults — I like this invitation to an emerging teenager to embrace that part of her growing-up. Too often, we’re quick to associate teenage embodiment with danger, not pleasure. As Frykholm says, “We all know that puberty, adolescence, adulthood are not solely about pleasure … But pain we know well. Pleasure we sometimes need help attending to” (177). Such an invitation crosses the boundaries of faith traditions and is a reminder to us all how much better we could be, as a culture, at living embodied and joyful lives.

Cross-posted at the oregon extension oral history project blog.

booknotes: women in lust

13 Sunday Nov 2011

Posted by Anna Clutterbuck-Cook in book reviews

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

feminism, gender and sexuality, smut, virtual book tours, writing

Today, I am participating in the virtual book tour for Women in Lust, a new erotica anthology edited by Rachel Kramer Bussel and published by Cleis Press. I’ve written straightforward reviews of erotica anthologies before, as well as using them as starting-points to muse about erotic writing more generally. This time I wanted to mix it up a little and followed up on Rachel’s offer to connect the virtual tour bloggers with anthology contributors for an e-interview.


Writer Donna George Storey was gracious enough to take the time to respond to my emailed questions with her thoughts about writing erotica professionally and what power erotica has to inform our lives. I hope you find her responses as thought-provoking as I did.


Without further ado, here’s Donna.


“My desire made me more interesting to myself.”
an interview with Donna George Storey  

Anna: You describe yourself as an academic turned erotic fiction writer. Can you say a little bit about how you made that shift? What prompted you to begin writing erotica, and then to make it a part of your professional life?

Donna: As far back as I can remember, I’ve loved to lose myself in a good story and dreamed of writing my own fiction.  However, I also internalized society’s messages that few writers make a living from their passion and most become staggering alcoholics, so it was safer to channel my love of words into an academic appreciation of the works of accepted “great authors.” The exoticism of Japanese literature, and the challenge of simply reading those intricate Chinese characters, kept me enthralled for a while, but deep down I felt I was ignoring my true calling.  I finally found the courage to write seriously when my first son was born, and I took a temporary break from teaching—which ended up being permanent.  Motherhood is supposed to drain you of all erotic and intellectual energy, but for me the opposite was true.

Donna’s collection of erotic literature and reference books related to Japan.
Photo by Donna George Storey, used with permission.

From the start my stories flirted with sex, but it took about a couple of years of practice before my stories were so steamy, I could no longer submit to proper literary magazines.  Yet I found being a “bad girl” immensely liberating to my creative spirit.  In spite of the erotica revolution in the 1990s when many talented authors and editors like Susie Bright and Maxim Jakubowski proved that stories with erotic themes could be smart, thought provoking and artistic, many people still assume sexually honest writing has to be poorly written, the kind of thing you hide under the bed.  My goal is to write stories that challenge that stereotype, stories that respect the complexity of the pleasures of body and mind.  Few mainstream authors are comfortable writing about sex in a way that celebrates its positive aspects (notice how often sex is coupled with punishment, betrayal, violence or other negative consequences in mainstream culture).  There are many erotica writers who do it bravely and beautifully—but we need more.  It changed my life and opened my senses in ways I’d never imagined, and I highly recommend it to everyone!

Anna: The story included in Women in Lust, “Comfort Food,” uses recipes and cooking as part of the seduction — and the end goal of the seduction, even. Can you talk a little bit about why you chose to write a piece centered around preparing and eating food? What was the immediate inspiration for this particular story?

Donna: When I’m not writing erotic stories, I love to cook, although I spend even more time salivating over beautiful cookbooks, a sort of culinary porn.  As I considered your question, I realized that my stories are also like recipes in that I’ll take an image that intrigues me and mix it together with a childhood memory, a touch of a lifelong hobby, and a few juicy tidbits from friends, then add a cup of my own libido to finish it all up.   “Comfort Food” is somewhat different from the common sex-and-food story involving lovers smearing whipped cream all over each other–which is fun, but messy!  In keeping with the female empowerment theme of Women in Lust, the story deals with a middle-aged woman’s fascination with a young chef and his secret pudding recipes.  He poses a challenge for her, but of course she gets everything she wants in the end.

There’s one line in this story that’s a particular favorite:  “My desire made me more interesting to myself.”  One of my many discoveries as an erotic writer is that sensual pleasure doesn’t have to be confined to the genitals.  Appreciating the sweetness of a ripe berry can be equally bewitching.  Yet enjoying food without guilt is as frowned upon in our society as enjoying sex without guilt, so that parallel also drove the story.  Last but not least, anyone who has a passion is very sexy to me, and good cooks by definition care about what they do.  Cooking is a form of communication, and I swear I can taste the love and dedication or lack thereof.  I once had an absolutely amazing dish of butterscotch pudding at a fancy restaurant in San Francisco called Fifth Floor.  I didn’t ask for the recipe, but I wish I had.

Anna: When I write about erotica and pornography as a blogger, I often get comments asking me for reading/viewing recommendations that are “women friendly” or “feminist.” Where do you go for good-quality erotic literature? Any suggestions for my readers about places to seek out reading matter?

Donna: Yes, I definitely have some recommendations.  Cleis Press and Seal Press publish smart, well-written and very hot anthologies that celebrate female pleasure—anything edited by Rachel Kramer Bussel, Violet Blue and Alison Tyler are sure bets.  Online magazines are a great place to sample different authors without commitment.  Clean Sheets (www.cleansheets.com) tends toward the literary, you can always count on good, sexy writing.  Oysters and Chocolate (www.oystersandchocolate.com) is edited by two wonderful women, Jordan LaRousse and Samantha Sade who embrace all varieties of stories.  Since I began writing, I’ve come to appreciate the sensibility an editor brings to an anthology.  It’s more than just fixing typos.

Anna: One of the things I’m fascinated by as a reader/amateur writer of erotic fan fiction and original erotic stories is the relationship between peoples’ sexual identities/experiences and the type of erotica they write or choose not to write. For example, there are straight and bisexual, even lesbian, women who write/read almost exclusively m/m erotica. I’m curious whether you write exclusively female/male erotica or whether you write other pairings (or groupings), and why you choose to write the pairings (or groupings) you do.

Donna: I’m fascinated by the same relationship myself.  Interestingly enough, the second most common question I hear after “are you published?” is “are your stories based on real life?” I actually do make use of material from my experience for many of my stories, but I take a lot of liberties with the facts, and none are strictly memoir.  No matter how realistic, erotic stories are fundamentally erotic fantasies.  Even if you aren’t peeping into the author’s actual bedroom, you are definitely getting a peek into her imagination and what really turns her on.  In a way, my readers are more intimate with me than many of my lovers have been.

When I write, I’m aiming to get at the hidden truths of sexuality, which is why I write mostly what I know, heterosexual sex, and why the wilder couplings are often explicitly presented as fantasy rather than reality.  On the other hand, it’s a big turn on to write and read about something you would never, ever do in real life.  That’s the power of fiction, to try on different lives.  So I have also written stories way outside of my experience.  I’ve noticed a trend of scenarios where a woman sleeps with two men, her maidenly reluctance completely overcome by her lover’s insistence that she enjoy sex with a hot stranger.  How can she say no to the man she loves, especially if he’s ordering her to be a slut?  It’s the perfect way to have your pudding and eat it, too.

Yet, I value authenticity and honesty in erotica.  I’d rather read a story written by a lesbian that gives me insight into her sensibility and experiences than something churned out by a guy who’s getting paid a penny a word for some hot girl-on-girl action.  Perhaps it’s my grounding in 70’s feminism, but part of me feels it’s a violation for a straight person to impersonate someone with a different orientation unless they approach it with great respect and sensitivity.  GLBT voices have been silenced for so long, it’s time to celebrate the chance for those who’ve been marginalized to tell it like it is.

That said, I have written a couple of lesbian stories that seemed to pass as believable.  My favorite is entitled “Ukiyo,” about a Japanese literature professor who takes a jaunt through Kyoto’s pleasure quarters with a colleague as an honorary man and finds herself becoming intimate with a female dancer.  I drew upon my own genuine curiosity and attraction to women, as well as a few actual drunken nights in Japan where my usual inhibitions were especially soft.  There was enough truth and genuine desire, I suppose, that Susie Bright chose the story for Best American Erotica 2006.

Anna: Are there any particular tropes in modern erotica that you wish would just go away?

Donna: I do have a particular pet peeve, which also happens to be a very common scenario in erotic fiction.  You lock eyes with a stranger at the bus stop or in a club, immediately retreat to an alley or public restroom, and have the most mind-blowing sex of your life without a word spoken.  I understand why this sort of zipless fuck is a popular fantasy—seduction is hard, knowing someone intimately is harder–but this particular type of story leaves me cold, bored, and unable to suspend disbelief.  I like to be warmed up first, even in fiction.

Anna: What are some of the things you wish we would see more of in erotic writing?

Donna: What I’d really love to see more of doesn’t have to do with a particular theme or kink, it’s about who writes erotica and why.  Until I started writing erotica myself, I thought of sexually arousing material as “out there,” images created by Hollywood or the porn industry, or naughty letters in Penthouse.  But writing erotica encouraged me to pay attention to my sexual response and my lover’s in a whole new way.  It was a tremendous awakening and took us to a new level of intimacy and enjoyment.  I realized how much sexual power and creativity was within me, not out there.

Donna George Storey
Photo by Laura Boyd, used with permission

The stories that blossomed from my imagination were an education as well.  Because of my writing, I’ve come to realize that sexual fantasy is not just a straight reflection of what you desire, it’s like a foreign language you have to decode.  Getting turned on by being dominated, as in the example above where the husband commands the wife to sleep with another man, does not mean you literally like or want to be dominated in all aspects of your life.   I now read this fantasy of mine as a way for my libido to borrow power relations in real life, where a good woman is only allowed to be sexual in relation to a husband.  But then something cool happens in my heated brain—the authority figure is transformed into someone who now allows  and insists on pleasure.   The same is true with exhibitionist fantasies, which are really about showing a hidden sexual self, not breaking genital exposure laws.  Sexual fantasy might seem taboo and outrageous, but at the heart is permission and acceptance of one’s eroticism.  That discovery has been very reassuring for me.   Even if you aren’t into this kind of analysis, just paying attention to what turns you on is fascinating.  How do you set up a gateway into your erotic world?  What point in the story is the climax?  How are figures in the real world transformed? (You’d never recognize my high school principal!)

As for the why you write, there’s lots of emphasis on publication as the test of a “real” writer, but the most meaningful erotica can be a private gift to yourself or your lover.  So, yes, I’d love to see more people exploring their erotic imaginations and writing lots of hot stories.  The world would be a much better place for it.




WOMEN IN LUST: You can read more about the Women in Lust anthology, and find excerpts of several stories contained therein, at the anthology website as well as purchasing copies from a variety of online booksellers including Amazon, Powells, or Cleis Press.

AUTHOR’S BIO:  Donna George Storey has taught English in Japan and Japanese in the United States.  She is the author of Amorous Woman, a very steamy novel about a woman’s love affair with Japan (check out the provocative book trailer).  She’s also published over a hundred literary and erotic stories and essays in such places as The Gettysburg Review, Fourth Genre, Women in Lust, Best American Erotica, The Mammoth Book of Best New Erotica, and Penthouse.

Cross-posted at The Pursuit of Harpyness. 

booknotes: october round-up

21 Friday Oct 2011

Posted by Anna Clutterbuck-Cook in book reviews

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

subject verdict

I’ve been reading lots lately, without a lot of time to write substantial review posts. So here’s another one of those massive “stuff I’ve been reading” posts that I find myself obliged to write several times a year. Alpha by author because I’m organizational that way at times. It’s the librarian thing.

Eagleton, Terry. Why Marx Was Right (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2011). So I’ve read a bit of Marx and generally think of myself as a socialist-minded leftist — when I think of myself in those types of political terms at all. But I’m not really all that clear about what makes Marxism unique among all of the other theories and practices of socialism and communism that exist in the world. Which is where Eagleton’s theory-heavy but still readable primer on Marxism was worth the read. Also he works in the phrase “a pathological obsession with penguins” and explains why this is perhaps not relevant to the class struggle. Mr. Eagleton, sir, I’d say you win all the things if this turn of phrase didn’t seem ill-conceived given the subject at hand.

Hale, Grace Elizabeth. A Nation of Outsiders: How the White Middle Class Fell in Love With Rebellion in Postwar America (New York: Oxford University Press, 2011). Hale’s history explores the different conduits by which white middle class Americans came to identify with “outsiders” between the 1950s and the 1980s, beginning with the publication of Catcher in the Rye and ending with an examination of Randall Terry’s anti-abortion organization Operation Rescue.  I found a lot of interesting stuff here, particularly Hale’s inclusion of conservative as well as liberal sources — white Civil Rights activists and folk musicians are well-trod ground, but the Jesus freaks are an under-explored phenomenon.  My one frustration with Hale’s treatment is that she tends to talk in broad general categories — i.e. “white middle class Americans” and “outsiders” without acknowledging that despite economic and racial privileges, not all white, middle-class folks were appropriating outsider identity — there were a lot of ways to experience marginalization in postwar America, and I feel those complications get short-shift. I would also have been pleased to see more in-depth discussion of the process by which flirtation with outsider identity prompted many white and middle-class people to actually become marginal outsiders in deed as well as word. Still — a truly thought-provoking recent read.

Maguire, Seanan. Rosemary and Rue (New York: Daw, 2009) and A Local Habitation (2010). Rosemary and Habitation are the first two volumes in a series of novels about changeling October “Toby” Daye, San Francisco-based private investigator and knight pledged to Daoine Sidhe Duke Sylvester Torquill of the Summerlands. You can tick off a lot of urban fantasy boxes for this series, and in addition to the satisfaction of the familiar Maguire consistently digs a little deeper into her stories and characters than strictly demanded in one’s popcorn fiction. There are no easy answers few heroes or villains without a whiff of moral dubiousness. I already have the third installment on order at the Brookline Public Library!

Moreno, Jonathan D. The Body Politic: The Battle Over Science in America (New York: Bellevue Literary Press, 2011). This was an advance review book I snagged via Early Reviewers on Library Thing. Moreno is a bioethicist at the University of Pennsylvania, and I suspect this primer was meant to serve as a classroom text, introducing students to key controversies at the intersection of biology (particularly human biology) and politics. It suffers from many of the shortcomings that other such introductory texts suffer from: summary treatment of thorny questions due to space limitations, a limited number of citations, and strongly-worded assertions meant (I assume) to provoke discussion for which scant evidence is given. I felt like the book suffered from poor organization — the text seemed to jump back and forth between historical narrative and issue-based sections, with little transition. The brevity of the text itself might be offset to great effect by the inclusion of a narrative bibliography or “further reading” section, neither of which were in evidence in the uncorrected proof. I’d argue that more valuable contributions to the field have been made by such authors as Michelle Goldberg (The Means of Reproduction) and Debora L. Spar (The Baby Business) — though granted, my knowledge in this area leans heavily toward reproductive technologies as well as the broader the right to bodily autonomy and health decision-making.

Priest, Cherie. Hellbent (New York: Spectra, 2011). I reviewed Bloodshot earlier in the year and was excited when the second installment of the Cheshire Red Reports so close on the heels of volume one. Hopefully there will be many more to come! Hellbent follows the continuing adventures of vampire and thief-for-hire Raylene as she and her chosen family of misfits hustle to keep themselves safe and financially stable in the midst of growing tensions in the vampire community and the appearance of a mentally unstable witch. Totally anticipating volume the third.


Smith, Christian. Christian America? What Evangelicals Really Want (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 2000). Now over a decade old, this book contains an analysis of over 100 lengthy interviews with self-identified evangelicals from across the nation in which the interviewees were asked to articulate their beliefs about Christian faith and practice as it relates to American political life and culture. Smith’s analysis of the data feels slightly heavy-handed in the “Evangelicals are not all close-minded bigots!” direction, but the data and first-person narratives will still be useful to people seeking to understand the worldviews of American evangelical Christians in the mid-1990s.

Sonnie, Amy and James Tracy. Hillbilly Nationalists, Urban Race Rebels and Black Power: Community Organizing in Radical Times (New York: Mellville House, 2011). Sonnie and Tracy have taken on the ambitious project of documenting the experiences of a number of white working class community organizers in Chicago, Philadelphia, and New York City during the 1960s and 70s. They set out to challenge the common assumption that poor and working-class whites of the era were knee-jerk racists who felt efforts to end racial discrimination translated into loss of (white) jobs in already-struggling urban areas. “These men and women understood that ending racism was not a threat or an act of charity,” they argue, “but a part of gaining their own freedom” (5). The extensive research represented in this book is a valuable contribution to the scholarship in this area, and I found it particularly interesting to read in tandem with A Nation of Outsiders, since Sonnie and Tracy chronicle many of the same events, but from the perspective of the outsiders themselves — rather than those who sought to romanticize them.

Taormino, Tristan (ed.). Take Me There: Trans and Genderqueer Erotica (New York: Cleis Press, 2011). I wrote a review of Take Me There over at Harpyness; you can also read an interview with Tristan Taormino at Lamda Literary. Erotica anthologies are always particularly tricky to review given that the unevenness of any anthology is compounded by the very personal nature of ones likes and dislikes when it comes to sexually explicit material. Suffice to say, there were some stories I liked, some I didn’t, and I’m looking forward to further expansion of the subgenre. In the meantime, may I recommend Julia Serano’s “Small Blue Thing,” “Now, Voyager” by Rahne Alexander, “The Visible Woman” by Rachel K. Zall, and Patrick Califia’s “Big Gifts in Small Boxes” — all of which can be found in Take Me There.

booknotes: premarital sex in america

30 Friday Sep 2011

Posted by Anna Clutterbuck-Cook in book reviews

≈ 6 Comments

Tags

books, gender and sexuality, sociology

It’s not that I had terribly high expectations for a book titled Premarital Sex in America: How Young Americans Meet, Mate, and Think About Marrying (New York: Oxford University Press, 2011). Because seriously: “premarital”? Particularly when the authors — sociologists Mark Regnerus and Jeremy Uecker — acknowledge in their introduction that by “premarital sex” they actually mean sexual activities undertaken by an “emerging adult” (ages 18-23) who is not married, and that by “young Americans” they actually mean people who are cisgendered and straight. In other words, the very framing of this book-length study by the title alone suggest that what readers will get is a familiar story re-packaged as a ground-breaking assessment of how “contemporary shifts in [sexual] market forces … have dramatically altered how [heterosexual] relationships are conducted” (as the jacket copy claims). As I said: not that I had terribly high expectations going in.

The thing is, this book could have been a successful and insightful analysis of 18-to-23-year-old heterosexual attractions, identities, and practices. With a mixture of quantitative and qualitative analysis (national data collection and 40 in-depth interviews), the authors could have offered new ways of understanding heterosexual sexual practices in young adulthood. They could of provided us with an in-depth exploration of the individual and cultural values, social pressures, and practical concerns that lead to those practices. They could have taken the opportunity to counter moral panic about changing sexual mores with data that show, for example, that college sexual cultures are much more relationship-based than a freewheeling marketplace of hook-ups. In fact, occasionally, Premarital Sex in America seems poised to take on this role of reality-check for media moralizing: marriage doesn’t mean the end of one’s sexual happiness (p. 174: “marriage tends to be good for emotional intimacy as well as sexual intimacy”) and the so-called hook-up culture (p. 106: “casual sex from hook-ups is rare by comparison, suggesting that popular perceptions of the depravity of the ‘hook-up culture’ may be somewhat overstated”). So despite initial trepidation, I was ready to give this book a reasonable change to prove my pre-conceptions wrong.
The problem can be boiled down to two systemic (and, I would argue, inter-related) issues. First, the persistence of the authors in leaning heavily on unexamined assumptions about what is “just a fact” or “inescapable” (they actually use both on p. 22) as well as the use of terms without specific definition — they never indicate, for example, how they determined the sexual orientation of their interviewees (identity? practice? desires?), and later in the book divide respondents into “reds”/conservatives and “blues”/liberals without detailing the criteria by which they sorted these groups (political affiliation? beliefs about sex? upbringing? religious practices?). They “explain” many of the assumptions I found problematic by relying heavily on shakey theories of innate gender difference (see here, here, here, and here) and the perennially popular theory of “sexual economics” in which men are the lustful consumers of sex which women “sell” for relationships. 
I obviously don’t have any first-hand experience in this heterosexual “marketplace” in which we ladies are selling the sex we don’t want for the emotional intimacy men reluctantly give in exchange for booty … but can I just say, on behalf of the many women and men I know who swing that way: EW. Not only is this theory an impoverished way of thinking about human sexuality, it has absolutely no explanatory power for peoples’ motivations to get into sexual relationships. Because if dudes are all about getting it off, hello: you have two hands and lots of (supposedly equally horny) fellow dudes who could help you out. If sex is just sex and the relational context in which it happens is meaningless, then what benefit would men have in seeking out women to be sexually intimate with? Zilch. The authors of this book actually say this at one point, when discussing pornography: “If porn-and-masturbation increasingly satisfies some of the male demand for intercourse, it reduces the value of intercourse, access to which women control” (246). You can only capture and keep a man by bartering sex in exchange for intimacy — if your fella has access to sex all on his ownsome, then tough. In turn, if women aren’t that into sex and want emotional intimacy — why bother with the work of selling sex in exchange for (presumably reluctantly-expressed or faux) emotional intimacy or relational stability when you could meet your emotional needs elsewhere — say with family members or close friends? — and avoid the trouble of putting out?
So basically, you could bother to describe heterosexual interactions in terms of economic transactions, but it’s not going to help you explain why men and women continue to seek each other out for long-term intimate relationships. In fact, the theory of sexual economy these authors put forward argues against hetero sex being at all rational as a way of meeting our emotional and physical needs — unless you happen to want to procreate (something they barely touch on within the text). It’s irritating and unsatisfying and, aside from everything else, makes me wonder why anyone who believes hetero sex works like this enjoys being heterosexual. 
I’d point out that another gaping hole in the theory of sexual economics these authors put forward is that they argue it’s just the way humanity operates … except they fail to take into account queer folks relationships, which are also part of humanity and are an interesting control group for the power of their pet theory. For example: if women barter sex for relational intimacy, then what happens when two women are in a relationship? Why hello, “lesbian bed death” the theory that will never die! Except … plenty of women in same-sex relationships are getting it on together … are we selling each other sex (that we don’t want) in exchange for emotional intimacy (that we already have?). You can see how it starts to get ridiculous damn fast.
Obviously, once someone’s overall framework for analysis fails to impress, the little shit begins to grate on one’s nerves. So for the sake of relieving my spleen I’m going to bullet-point the smaller issues I had with how the data was presented and analyzed:
  • The use of “virgin” to mean “person who hasn’t had vaginal intercourse.” First, I’m skeptical that all of the studies from which the authors drew data defined “virgin” in exactly this way, and second … really book? really? We’re going to reinforce the idea that sex = tab A into slot B one more frickin’ time? Particularly when in the same breath, practically, you go on to talk about “virgins” who’ve engaged in oral and anal sex?
  • Lack of transparency in data. So I realize I’m hypercritical of data because, well, I’m suspicious and I’ve been trained by good friends and colleagues that way. But when you start telling me things like what the average number of sexual partners for X group over X period of years is … and then tell me you’re relying on self-reporting … I’m tempted to throw out the data. Unless you’re going to tell me how you asked study participants to define “sex” and “partner” and whether you asked them to keep track over a period of months or years, or whether this was data based on recollection, etc. 
  • Describing people as “attractive” without qualification. Especially when you’re two men describing your college-age study participants as “attractive 20-year-old women.” Just: EW. But beyond that, the assumption that attractiveness is some sort of objective, measurable quality and that it exists on a static scale rather than being deeply subjective and situational. 
  • Suggesting sexual “mystery” is better than reality in relationships. Again, a symptom of seeing sex as transactional: men, it seems, are most interested in sex they think they desire but must pursue. So the “easier” women are to fuck, the quicker the relationship is to “age” and grow stale. Additional negative points for working in sentences like: “It’s a classic tale that characterizes billions of sexual relationships in human history” (80). Naturalizing something by making it seem historically inevitable = no cookies for you!
  • Failing to define “pornography.” Yeah, it becomes clear that they (like so many other critics) mean commercially-produced videos and photographs. But that’s no excuse for laziness in reporting. Since they seem to have assumed everyone was on the same page about what pornography was, they accepted the reporting on their interviewees concerning the effect “porn” had on their relationships and sexual desires. A much more interesting conversation could have been had if they had probed a little more deeply into their subjects engagement with erotic materials on a broader scale (I bet at least some of the young women they interviewed are writers and readers of slash fan-fiction, for example). Instead, we just got the tired scare story about how mainstream video pornography is creating unrealistic expectations in men concerning women’s bodies and sexuality.
  • Failing to delve beyond the most obvious analysis of their data. This happens repeatedly, so I’m just going to give one example. In a section on negotiating unwanted sexual practices, the authors report that the top “unwanted sexual request made by men of women is for anal sex” (the top unwanted request by women of men is for cunnilingus). It becomes clear that what they mean is men are requesting penis-in-anus sex, though they don’t articulate this. No mention is made whether they asked the men (or women) about penetrative anal sex to stimulate the prostate, which is something I don’t think they count as “sex” because they suggest that “there is no biological basis for preferring anal sex to vaginal sex” … a statement that would only make sense if they were thinking about stimulation of a penis. They go on to argue that men are only asking to perform anal sex because they’ve learned it’s part of the sexual script from watching pornographic films. They also accept without further analysis women’s self-reporting that they just don’t like anal sex, full stop, without exploring in what contexts it was tried (i.e. did the partners have lube? did they prep adequately? was there coercion? did they try a second time, with better results?). Precision counts people!
  • “Intercourse is more satisfying than masturbation” (157). Written in a section headed “Semen: An Antidepressant?” So … yeah. I just want to point out — AGAIN — that reducing sex to penis-in-vagina intercourse is a big problem in this book. I also think there is something deeply troubling about the idea that solitary sexual activity is and unsatisfactory substitute for relational sex. Not because it isn’t for many people (though I’m going to go out on a limb and say that for some it likely is) but because masturbation isn’t a substitute activity. It’s a parallel or complementary sexual activity. We do it, and enjoy it. We get different things out of it than we get out of partnered sex. Many women in The Hite Report and Our Bodies, Ourselves, among other texts, report very distinct types of orgasms (both pleasurable) from self-stimulation and partnered stimulation. 
  • Characterizing a relationship that ends as a relationship that “failed.” Relationships can be formed for many reasons, and as long as they were mutually-satisfying for all the people involved for the duration of the relationship, there’s no reason why the fact the relationship ended means the relationship failed. It’s true that many relationships do come to an end because one member or both stops being satisfied. But “end” doesn’t automatically mean “fail.”
  • Emotional health is a woman thing. Again: seriously? Yeah … they’re serious. Not only do they bring up the correlation between abortion and depression (without clarifying it’s a correlation and not necessarily causation), as well as a throw-away mention of the correlation between same-sex activity and poor mental health outcomes, but they out-and-out argue that women’s emotional health is the only story that matters: “the central story about sex and emotional health is how powerful the empirical association is for women–and how weak it is among men” (138). They explain this using the theory of “natural” gender differences which, since the data to support this theory is shite, isn’t really an explanation at all. 

By way of a conclusion, Renerus and Uecker offer to dispel “ten myths about sex and relationships” for which the evidence “just isn’t there” (242). Some of these are fairly value-neutral — for example the first one is the myth that “long-term exclusivity is a fiction,” when in fact only about 12-13% of American adults followed in a longitudinal study reported cheating on their partners. But others are off-the-wall wacky, such as the assertion that “to call the sexual double standard wrong is a little like asserting that rainy days are wrong” (243), or their suggestion that women control men’s sexual impulses by playing hard to get: “If the average price for sex should rise, men’s sexual behavior could become subject to more constraints” (245). Their sexual economics lens for viewing human relationships, oddly enough, leads them to espouse a deeply conservative and moralizing tone when it comes to suggesting how we can effect change in sexual interactions.

Finally, as I argued above, the theory of a (hetero)sexual economy that pervades the analysis in this book is deceptively simplistic in its power to “explain” human interactions. Instead, it could more aptly be understood as a compelling set of metaphors for a specific type of sexual scene — say a fraternity party or a singles bar. Because, as reviewer Evan Hughes notes, “shaky when you examine it closely, the sexual economics theory in its broad outline seems almost trivially true: it describes what we know but does little to explain what we do not understand.” Because the economy is so compelling as a metaphor (at least to Regnerus and Uecker), they fail to ask any new questions of their material, instead regurgitating outdated gender stereotypes in place of fresh insight.

Cross-posted at The Pursuit of Harpyness.

"The second vital smirch"

20 Tuesday Sep 2011

Posted by Anna Clutterbuck-Cook in book reviews

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

blogging, books, fun, harpyness, humor, writing

So last night I got a pingback on a book review I wrote earlier in the year at Harpyness of Stephanie Coontz’ A Strange Stirring. Out of curiosity (who would be linking to a six-month-old post?) I clicked through. At first glance it appeared to be a book review of Judith Warner’s Perfect Madness. At second glance it turned out to be a plagiarized version of my review of Judith Warner’s Perfect Madness.

Well, sort of.

“mommy and baby are people of highly importance”
(click image to imbiggen)

As I started skimming the post, I realized that they hadn’t quite plagiarized it … they’d thrown it through a translation filter (or maybe several?) so that the result was complete gobbledygook. The whole site reads like it was put together by a robot with only a thin grasp of English.

It’s just not worth going after them for stealing my post, because in actual fact their garbled version is much more colorful and entertaining than my own incisive analysis! I’m not going to link to the post because I’m philosophically opposed to sending traffic their way (though, *cough*cough*, you can find the ping-back on the Coontz review comment thread above … they were foolish enough to leave the internal links intact from the original post … bwahahahah!). However, I’m totally not above providing y’all with some Tuesday afternoon laughs.

My review reads:

Suddenly, living in the Washington D.C. metropolitan area, Warner found herself with no critical distance on a culture that rewarded mothers for being entirely absorbed in, perfectionists at, a very particular type of mothering.

The plagiarized review reads:

Suddenly, vital in a Washington D.C. civil area, Warner found herself with no vicious stretch on a enlightenment that rewarded mothers for being wholly engrossed in, perfectionists at, a unequivocally sold form of mothering.

My review reads:

The second major flaw in Perfect Madness was the way Warner allows herself to make pretty harsh judgments about specific parenting choices.

The plagiarized review reads:

The second vital smirch in Perfect Madness was a proceed Warner allows herself to make flattering oppressive judgments about specific parenting choices.

My review reads:

Warner lays the blame for her sorrows at the feet of ‘the culture wars’ between social conservatives and feminists, whom she believes waste their energies on issues that are not of concern to the majority of Americans.

The plagiarized review reads:

Warner lays a censure for her sorrows at a feet of ‘the enlightenment wars’ between social conservatives and feminists, whom she believes waste their energies on issues that are not of regard to a infancy of Americans.

My review reads:

As a thirty-year-old woman in a lesbian relationship with no immediate plans to parent, I am not the demographic that Warner is writing about or writing for.  Even if I were to find myself a parent, the legacies of my own childhood in a fairly radical household and my own values system would preclude parenting the way the women in this book are parenting. Their values are, in many ways, decidedly not my values. And because of that, the experience of reading Perfect Madness felt voyeuristic at times. The study of lives and concerns at far remove from my own.

The plagiarized review reads (this might be my very favorite paragraph):

As a thirty-year-old lady in a lesbian attribute with no evident skeleton to parent, we am not a demographic that Warner is essay about or essay for.  Even if we were to find myself a parent, the legacies of my possess childhood in a sincerely radical domicile and my possess values complement would preclude parenting a proceed a women in this book are parenting. Their values are, in many ways, decidedly not my values. And given of that, a knowledge of reading Perfect Madness felt voyeuristic during times. The investigate of lives and concerns during distant mislay from my own.

My friend Lola has suggested that now she should qualify every introduction of me with “a lesbian attribute” as in, “this is Anna, a lesbian attribute.” When we find out what I’m an attribute of you’ll certainly be the first to know!

booknotes: making sense of sex

16 Friday Sep 2011

Posted by Anna Clutterbuck-Cook in book reviews

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

feminism, gender and sexuality, religion

Without getting too explicit here, I can pinpoint the exact moment in which I made the decision to pursue a sexual relationship with Hanna. I was in the Schlesinger Library’s reading room ostensibly doing research for a seminar paper, but in actual fact writing a long and incredibly angst-ridden letter to a friend about all these unruly thoughts and feelings I was having about this new person who’d just recently walked into my life. And somewhere in the midst of writing the letter, it clicked. I was in a muddle — and then I wasn’t. I can’t explain it more coherently than that. It was an intuitive thing: When I sat with the idea of not being with Hanna, I was anxious and sad; when I sat with the idea of being with her, that knot of unhappiness unwound and the world settled into place.

Of course, that moment of decision was only a hinge, the personal turning point amidst a sea of smaller decision-making steps, choices made and chances taken in the midst of what I still think of as our “courtship” period. All of which added up to the “intuitive” decision that I wanted to be with this person, wanted a specific type of relationship with her. What Michael F. Duffy, author of Making Sense of Sex: Responsible Decision Making for Young Singles (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2010), would like us all to do is make that intuitive process a conscious and deliberate one: a process of personal and moral discernment.

I’m going to come clean here and confess that I requested the advance review copy of this book because I expected to be able to write a snarky review highlighting how full of fail it was. The pre-publication blurb made clear that this book was coming at the question of whether or not to have sex from a Christian perspective, and while I’m definitely open to the possibility that Christians can be awesome about human sexuality, most of the Christian-centric literature I’ve read on decision-making about sex has been woeful. So yeah (guilty foot shuffle) I was kinda looking forward to making fun of it.

The thing is: This is one of the best books I’ve read on the subject of ethical sexual decision-making. Granted, I haven’t read everything out there — and not much of it has been from an explicitly religious point of view. But I was pretty damn impressed: it pushed virtually none of the buttons I was expecting it to push, and got a lot right in the process. It has its limitations (about which Mr. Duffy is upfront in the introduction): it supposes a predominantly Christian audience, and a heterosexual, gender-normative one. Anyone who isn’t interested in lengthy examinations of personal motivation and ethics is bound to be bored, and someone who isn’t Christian and is actively turned off by Christian language would likely have a hard time getting passed the more overtly religious chapters. But the overall point of this book is to lay out a framework for sexual decision-making, not to point readers toward any one way of engaging in relational sex. Beyond the principle of basic mutual consent (more on this below), Duffy bends over backward to remind his readers that ethical people are capable of coming to differing conclusions about what constitutes a good reason to engage in sexual activity — and that each person might have made a moral choice.

Things for which Duffy earned points in my book:

  • The chapter on sexual consent. This chapter is solidly grounded in (I would say feminist) theories of mutual consent, not only covering the ground-rules of basic consent but also pushing readers to consider how much responsibility we have ensure our partners are making informed decisions about being sexual with us. His four ground-rules are 1) no sex with someone unwilling, 2) alcohol and drugs make consent problematic, 3) in general no sex with people in categories that make them incapable of consent [i.e. underage, mentally incapacitated], and 4) no sex when one person has “identifiable power” over the other. Beyond that, he writes “We should remember as we go that sexual consent is not a one-time agreement but must be maintained throughout any sexual encounter or relationship” (6). In other words, consent is ongoing and negotiated between the relevant parties.
  • Reasons for being sexually intimate. He pushes his (presumably Christian) audience to consider that premarital and “casual” sex can be a moral choice for some people, in some circumstances. He emphasizes throughout that self-awareness, responsibility, and communication are key. He allows that, depending on your view of God and the Bible, it may be that you personally decide that premarital sex is sinful — while reminding his readers that many Christians have caring, nourishing sexual relationships outside of marriage and that many of the arguments for limiting sex to marriage have more to do with rules than the actual material difference between marital and non-marital relationships.
  • Pregnancy and abortion. Anyone who pushes Planned Parenthood as an organization to which you can turn to for resources and support (p. 147) is someone who deserves kudos in my book. The chapter on pregnancy prevention and family planning is somewhat limited by the fact he’s only talking about heterosexual relationships (my marginalia alongside the chapter title, “If you do not wish to become pregnancy, how will you prevent it?” reads: “have sex only with women :)” (43)!). Given that, though, he encourages partners to be clear about their desires regarding pregnancy and emphasizes mutual responsibility in the event of an unplanned pregnancy — while being very clear that the “deciding vote” over what to do goes to “the woman in whose body this form of human life is growing” (80). Basic? Perhaps — but not when written for college students and twentysomethings who have been steeped in anti-abortion rhetoric and culture their entire lives.
  • Lack of sexism. This, also, is going to sound basic. But Duffy’s overall schematic for sexual decision-making is very light on the question of gender. With the exception (for obvious reasons) of the chapter on pregnancy — and to a lesser extent the section on sexual assault and coercion — one could take his questions about sexual ethics and ask them of any person, regardless of gender identity or sexual orientation. His concept of sexual ethics is not dependent on a belief in innate gender difference — he does not assume, for example, that women will automatically suffer more (or at all) from “hooking up,” or that men are not interested in committed relationships. In this era of increasing buy-in to theories of gender difference, gender-blind sexual ethics are a welcome relief.

Areas in which Making Sense of Sex was lacking:

  • Heteronormative framework. Duffy is up-front in the introduction that he chose to focus on heterosexual partners in his text, in part because that’s where his own personal experience lies. While I’m pleased he made a conscious decision, I also question the narrowness of his interpretation of sexual ethics: are same-sex or genderqueer folks really so different as to need a whole different framework for understanding their sexual lives? And the same could go for folks choosing poly relationships — couldn’t the same basic questions about trust and meaning apply to them as well? I think he short-changes himself in this regard and (perhaps inadvertently) sends the message that non-heteronormative relationships are so utterly different as to be beyond the scope of his project. He makes a passing mention to “group sex” and the fact it can be ethical, but doesn’t get much into it.
  • Sex = “vaginal intercourse” (xv)? Really? Even given Duffy’s focus on heterosexual couples, I feel that choosing to define sex straight-up as “vaginal intercourse” is a missed opportunity to challenge the majority assumption that this is the beginning and ending of human sexual activity.
  • Pornography and sexual ethics. While I understand why he skirted this issue (it could be a book in and of itself), I think the question of pornography and erotica — and its place in human sexual activities — really cannot and should not be avoided when talking about sexual ethics. If I were going to use Duffy’s book in a class, I’d want to augment it with a list of readings on erotica.

So, overall verdict? This would be a solid text to use in a course or workshop on sexual decision-making, but I’d definitely want to add some other titles to the list — Heather Corinna’s invaluable S.E.X.: The All-You-Need-to-Know Progressive Sexuality Guide to Get You Through High School and College (New York: Marlowe, 2007) comes to mind — as a way to bring queer perspectives into the discussion. And I’d make sure to have a full-fledged discussion about how erotic materials might be ethically and mutually enjoyed by all parties in a sexual relationship, as well as the way in which they are often used to cover up or avoid areas of a relationship that have ceased to function. If this is your area of professional or personal interest — and especially if you’re working with young people who come from a Christian background — I’d highly recommend checking this book out as a useful resource.

This book was made available to me in electronic format for advance review through NetGalley.

booknotes: birth matters

02 Friday Sep 2011

Posted by Anna Clutterbuck-Cook in book reviews

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

books, children, feminism, human rights, sexuality

I must have hallucinated starting the review of this book, because I have a clear memory of doing so but now cannot find the draft anywhere. Och, well. We’ll just have to begin again.

I need to admit upfront that I’m an entirely biased reviewer of anything Ina May Gaskin writes. My mother’s copy of Spiritual Midwifery was, along with Our Bodies, Ourselves, one of my adolescent introductions to feminism, as well as to female bodies and the amazing things they’re capable of. I think what Gaskin and the other midwives at The Farm have been doing for the past forty years is hands-down one of the most awesome things to come out of the 1960s, the women’s health movement, and feminist activism. So when my friend Molly offered up Ina May Gaskin’s Birth Matters: A Midwife’s Manifesta (New York: Seven Stories Press, 2011) as one of the reading options for her GoodReads reading group on feminist pregnancy, birth, and parenting, I jumped at the chance.

UPDATE: You can read Molly’s review over at first the egg.

That having been said, I also approached the Gaskin’s memoir with some trepidation: how would her work and her writing come across in a new book, one that would be impossible to read through the filter of “that’s just how they talked about things back in the 70s…”? I was a little bit worried about being let down, much in the same way one’s favorite books from childhood often feel a bit tarnished upon re-reading.

My fears, however, were (mostly) all for naught. Birth Matters is highly readable, compelling, contemporary, and unapologetically feminist in its approach to the political and cultural barriers to high-quality pregnancy, birth, and parent-and-child care in our society. “The way a culture treats women in birth is a good indicator of how well women and their contributions to society are valued and honored,” Gaskin argues in chapter one, “The Importance of Birth and Birth Stories”:

My intention in this book is not to persuade those women who want to avoid pregnancy to change their minds — far from it. But I do want to convince even women with no interest in motherhood that the right to a positive and safe birth is just as important as the right to choose whether or not to have a child (7).

She gently points out that the often bitter divisions between parents and non-parents is an unhelpful model for making our world a better place for all humanity: “It is time for feminists to realize that pitting the needs of nonmothers against those of mothers is a way of weakening — not strengthening — women. Women should not lose their human rights when they become mothers” (41). Beyond looking at women and mothers, she articulates what I think should be shouted from the rooftops by us all: that the way we welcome children into the world speaks volumes about how we value humanity — and as such, birth matters to all of us simply because we are part of that human community. The way we were welcomed into the world and cared for as infants and children is part of that story, even if we don’t ever plan on becoming parents ourselves.

Gaskin has been in the enviable (for most midwives) position of enjoying strong, positive working relationships with practicing OB/GYN physicians throughout her tenure as a midwife at The Farm, and her belief in the ability of medical doctors and lay or nurse-midwives to work together to foster positive birth experiences for families is evident throughout the book. I really appreciated the way she highlighted the work of medical doctors who trust birthing parents’ bodies and offer their expertise without trying to direct the process or fueling fear of the body’s work during pregnancy. Yes, sometimes life-threatening complications develop during pregnancy and birth — but too often in our culture we attempt medical interventions in childbirth that end up being detrimental to the health and well-being of both infants and their birth parents. Gaskin offers an alternative vision of how birth practices can be (and have for the nearly three thousand births Gaskin and her team have overseen in the forty years between 1970-2010). Indeed, it is the outcomes of Gaskin’s practice that will likely be most compelling for skeptics of out-of-hospital childbirth: of the 2,844 births attended at the Farm 94.7% were completed at home with a maternal death rate of 0% and a neonatal death rate of 1.7 deaths per 1,000 births. The Farm’s rate for c-sections stands at 1.7% which nation-wide hovers between 30-50% (far exceeding the World Health Organization’s recommendation of 5-10% of all births*).

Most of what Ina May Gaskin has to say will sound familiar to anyone who has read recent books on pregnancy and birth, particularly Born in the USA by Marsden Wagner and Pushed by Jennifer Block (I highly recommend them both). However, there is some valuable material here that even those familiar with the arguments for the midwifery model of care will likely be interested in. Interspersed throughout are birth narratives written by women who have given birth at The Farm. From my point of view, there can never be too many birth narratives out there for us to draw upon. It’s particularly useful to read how different each person’s story is, even though they have made some of the same basic choices about the type of care they want to receive. I was also glad to see a chapter on sexuality and childbirth — something I wish Gaskin had done more with. The midwives at the farm have long advocated for sexual interaction between a laboring woman and her partner(s) as a way of facilitating a less painful, more effective labor. The idea of “orgasmic childbirth” might seem obscene to some, idealistic to others, but even if you don’t want to think about childbirth itself as a sexual experience, I think Gaskin has some important points to make about the way medicalizing childbirth (treating it as an illness) has removed women’s bodies and their physical presence — sexual and otherwise — from the active birth process.

My one frustration with Birth Matters is the consistency with which Gaskin’s language choices and examples reinforce the assumption that all birthing takes place within the context of heterosexual, gender-normative lives. The birth parent is consistently a woman/mother and is never identifiably partnered with a woman, although in several stories it is unclear whether the birth parent is single or has a partner. This seemed like an odd oversight for someone who is otherwise so clearly open to the possibility that families come in many shapes and sizes. At times, Gaskin also over-simplifies the history of midwifery and falls into the trap of romanticizing the sacred feminine and female bodies — something that makes me slightly uncomfortable since I try to avoid essentializing femininity/femaleness. I’d recommend, as a supplement to reading this, the wonderful essay “The Manly Art of Pregnancy,” by j wallace (found in Gender Outlaws: The Next Generation, edited by S. Bear Bergman and Kate Bornstein, 2010) which just might be my favorite thing written about pregnancy ever. And I would hope that future editions of this work acknowledge more overtly that people with many different sex and gender identities and family contexts become pregnant and wish to give birth in supportive, low-intervention settings such as The Farm.

The final verdict: Read this book if you care about the cultural and political contexts in which we come into the world, and if you question — even a little bit — the medicalization of pregnancy and childbirth that has become the norm in our country at this point in history. Gaskin’s memoir-manifesta is a beautiful testament to how there is a different way — not just in the future, but here and now.

*See the WHO report The Global Numbers and Costs of Additionally Needed and Unnecessary Caesarean Sections Performed per Year: Overuse as a Barrier to Universal Coverage [PDF]

booknotes: the truth about boys and girls

26 Friday Aug 2011

Posted by Anna Clutterbuck-Cook in book reviews

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

children, education, feminism, masculinity, science

I have recently discovered NetGalley, an online resource for requesting e-book versions of forthcoming titles from a wide variety of publishers. As a blogger and librarian, I was able to sign upi for an account and I’ve requested a handful of titles. It’s my first true foray into the work of e-book reading. Verdict so far: meh on e-books in general, but I’m totally down with electronic advance review copies. It makes distributing ARCs so much more cost effective for publishers, which in turn makes it much more likely they’ll be willing to share them with bloggers who might review the book but have no purchasing budget.

The first galley I read was The Truth About Boys and Girls: Challenging Toxic Stereotypes About Our Children (New York: Columbia University Press, 2011), by Caryl Rivers and Rosalind C. Barnett. Rivers and Barnett are the team that brought us Same Difference (2004), which tackles the work of scientists who claim that men and women are innately different in their psychological makeup. The Truth About Boys and Girls picks up this same subject, but focuses specifically on the way claims about innate gender difference are a) unsupported by rigorous scientific research, and b) continue to have potent persuasive power among parents, teachers, policymakers, and others involved in shaping the everyday life of children. This thesis is not going to be news to anyone who moves in feminist circles, so I would caution that unless you want to stay current on all the publications in this area, a quick skim of this book is likely all that is in order. Maybe I’m biased toward the overly technical and detailed, but when it comes to reviews of the relevant scientific research on this subject, I’ve found Rebecca Jordan-Young’s Brainstorm and Cordelia Fine’s Delusions of Gender to be the best critiques out there.

Still, this is a highly-readable book that might serve as an introduction to the topic, particularly those who feel at sea fairly quickly amidst scientific jargon. The chapters are arranged to take on the major areas of supposed gender difference: ability with maths, ability with language, empathy and caring, physical aggression, and several chapters at the end specifically targeted toward the rising popularity of sex-segregated classrooms (and the myth that sex-segregation enhances learning for both boys and girls).

The most frightening take-away from this book, I found, was the reminder that our world is becoming more not less invested in the idea of innate gender difference. As Barnett and Rivers point out in their introduction, “It’s ironic that as neuroscience tells us more and more about the similarity of our brains, popular culture incessantly beams the opposite message, drowning out the real story” (5). Both girls and boys are harmed by these difference stereotypes (girls consistently being told they will under-perform in math and science, for example, thus increasing the likelihood due to stereotype threat that they will meet those low expectations). However, it’s particularly striking to see how — in our current cultural climate, at least — boys are particularly vulnerable to the straightjacket of gendered expectations. Girls, at least, have alternate and fairly prominent voices advocating for them: they might get relentlessly marketed to by the Disney princess line and told they can’t do math because their brains don’t work that way … but they also (most likely) have adults in their lives who encourage them to play soccer, ride bicycles, or take on leadership roles. The “boy crisis” panic of recent years, rather than focusing on the harm that gender stereotyping does to boys has actually focused mostly on reinforcing those stereotypes in ever-more extreme ways:

Out of this crucible of alarm, a particular image of the ‘typical’ boy has emerged in many media reports: he’s unable to focus, can’t sit still, hates to read, acts up in class, loves sports and video games, and gets in trouble a lot. Indeed, such boys do exist — it has long been established that boys suffer more from attention deficit disorder than girls do — and they need all the help they can get. But research shows that this picture does not reflect the typical boy. Boys, in fact, are as different from one another as they are from girls. Nonetheless, some are advocating boys-only classrooms in which boys would be taught in boot-camp fashion (78).

And a few pages later, summarizing the recommendations of author Leonard Sax:

A boy who likes to read, who does not enjoy contact sports, and who does not have a lot of close male friends has a problem, even if he thinks he is happy (89).

Although the authors don’t overtly connect such panic about masculine behavior to homophobia, I have to say the above sentence fairly screams with “oh my god what if he has teh gay!” Later on, in the chapter about “rough and tumble” play, the authors do note that adult interpretation of children’s play as conforming to gender stereotypes might actually be subverting them or otherwise working around those expectations in interesting ways. Rough and tumble play, they suggest “gives boys an acceptable medium for being physically close in cultural or social environments that otherwise discourage such behavior” (114). Obviously this doesn’t mean that all physical closeness is homoerotic to the participants, but it does suggest that in a society that discourages boys from physical intimacy with one another and/or with girls — physical closeness that most human beings need regardless of gender — play that adults read as “masculine” and aggressive might actually be a way of meeting the human need for touch.

Like Cordelia Fine in Delusions of Gender, Rivers and Barnett emphasize the degree to which children perform gender based on the modeling and perceived expectations of the adults around them. For example, they note that the majority of research of the group behavior of children is conducted in school settings — sites where adults are constantly reminding children that they are gendered beings (from the greeting of “good morning boys and girls!” to sorting children into male and female groups for recess).  Recent research on play behavior among children has found that in spaces where gender is not brought to the fore by adults — for example in unstructured neighborhood play — children are less likely to fall into gendered patterns of behavior, and to seek playmates across gender lines.

“In short,” Barnett and Rivers write toward the end of The Truth, “the differences within each sex are greater than the differences between the sexes. It makes no sense to talk about boys and girls as if they were homogeneous groups that are different enough to warrant separate educational treatment” (180). “Not only do single-sex public schools violate constitutional principles, but they deprive our children of important learning opportunities and run the very real risk of reinforcing the toxic sex stereotypes that are rampant in our society” by encouraging children to think that boys and girls are so wholly alien from one another they can’t even learn side-by-side.

Hopefully our society will get the message sooner or later. In the meantime, I can only say that I’m glad that there are so many feminist parents out there who are encouraging their daughters and sons to carry on bravely being who they are rather than what the outside world insists they ought to become.

booknotes: compulsory heterosexuality and lesbian existance

19 Friday Aug 2011

Posted by Anna Clutterbuck-Cook in book reviews

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

feminism, gender and sexuality, reading lesbian classics

I recently unearthed a pamphlet copy of Adrienne Rich’s “Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence,” originally written in 1977 and published in Signs in 1980 (vol. 5, no. 4). “Compulsory Heterosexuality” is one of those essays that more or less permanently altered the way we think about the cultural discourses surrounding women’s sexuality and women’s relationships. It’s the essay that brought us the term “the lesbian continuum,” and — although it doesn’t use the term — described the forces of heternormativity [link] which foster queer invisibility in mainstream culture.

It does not age particularly well.

Well, that’s not entirely fair. The language of “Compulsory Heterosexuality” is the language of the mid- to late-1970s lesbian feminism. On one level it speaks to a very specific set of issues within the feminist and gay liberation movements of the period. By the time the essay was re-published in pamphlet form by Antelope Publications in 1982, Rich herself felt compelled to write a forward in which she discussed “the way [the essay] was originally conceived and the context in which we are now living.” In the span of a few short years the context had shifted to such an extent the essay appeared to need an explanatory (and somewhat apologetic) preface. At the same time, if a contemporary reader (in this case, me) can look below the anachronistic language and consider — in historical context — the argument Rich is making, there are some important and still relevant points for us to consider.

So in the spirit of civic duty, I’ve read it so you don’t have to!

(Though if you’re interested in knowing this piece of feminist and lesbian history first-hand, I do actually recommend you go straight to the source and not rely on my own note-taking abilities.)

Let’s look at the good stuff first, and then tackle the not-so-good later on.

Rich wrote this essay, as I mentioned before, with a very specific audience in mind: feminist scholars and activists who were interested in thinking about the place of lesbians (I’ll discuss definitions in a minute) within the women’s movement of the 1970s. Rich argues that within the mainstream feminist movement, lesbian lives are rendered invisible — and that by erasing lesbians from feminist activism, feminist activists are cutting themselves off from an important source of female solidarity, which in turn is an important resource for combatting gender-based oppression. As long as women percieve heterosexual partnerships as their only option, they will avoid intimate female friendships that might become a basis for emotional and material support in opposing sexism. To support her argument, Rich draws on a number of contemporary examples of feminist writing in which women are presumed heterosexual, or in which the existence of non-straight women is acknowledged but then glossed over. This heterocentrism within feminist writing is still an issue, though the situation has (I would argue) grown far less dire over the intervening decades — straight feminists are less defensive about being percieved as lesbians, and gay rights have definitely become part and parcel of mainstream feminist activism, even though we can debate endlessly which issues get the attention and why (trans rights anyone?).

A secondary point Rich is trying to make is that because of their experience as women, the lives of lesbians are not adequately represented by a discussion of “gay” (implicitly male) experience. This was particularly true during the 1970s when the gay male and lesbian subcultures had significantly diverged — the men towards pre-AIDS bar and bath-house culture, the women toward lesbian-separatist “women’s” culture. Obviously the separation was far from total, but it was still significant. Even if gay male and lesbian lives had been more similar than not, Rich’s basic point that discussions of gay male experience don’t substitute for actually considering lesbian experience is still a relevant one — similar to the by now familiar argument that one can’t make generalizations about “human” physiological experience or health when one’s sample population is entirely male.

And finally, I think that Rich’s emphasis on the “lesbian continuum” of female relationships, and her attempt to include as wide a range as possible of relationship types in her definition of what “lesbian existence” constitutes, in some sense presages our early-twenty-first-century discussions concerning the wide variety of intimate relationships and how individual our sexual identities and practices are. While she assumes on some level an innate sexual orientation, Rich also suggests that heteronormative pressures mask the full range of women’s desires, and artificially push them toward heterosexual partnerships to the exclusion of other relationship formations that might suit them better … whether that means a lesbian sexual relationship or something else.

The not-so-good parts are those which are mired in 1970s-era feminist discussions of hetero sex as an oppressive institution (which makes theoretical sense if you’re thinking in structural terms, but has limited application to individual relationships), the gender essentialism, and the bias toward all-female spaces that creep in to her argument. “Women-identified women” is the concept we get in to here: to be “women-identified,” and part of the lesbian continuum, is “a source of energy, a potential springhead of female power, violently curtailed and wasted under the institution of heterosexuality” (29). This argument makes sense if one is looking at the relationship between men/maleness and women/femaleness in terms of oppressors and victims (yes, those in power benefit when those being oppressed are kept divided from one another, are kept from forming alliances). However, I would argue that we understand more clearly today that people of all genders suffer under the inequality of kyriarchy and that simply coming together as women will not automatically give us access to “female power” … there are plenty of “women-identified women” who have a vested interest in promoting existing injustices. Plenty of women with strong female friendships have zero interest in seeing themselves as part of a “lesbian continuum.”

And of course the problem with a reliance of all-female spaces and gender essentialism to make your case for feminism and lesbian politics is that it grounds your argument in an understanding of sex and gender that makes no room for non-binary understandings of gender. Rich opens the possibility for a non-binary understanding of sexuality, arguing that “as the term ‘lesbian’ has been held to limiting, clinical associations … female friendship and comradeship have been set apart from the erotic, thus limiting the erotic itself” (22). Yet she remains committed to an understand of maleness and femaleness, male and female sex and gender, that position men as the beneficiaries and women as the victims — with no interrogation of who, exactly, constitutes these categories and what happens when we muddy the gender waters.

And I think I’ll leave it there. Check out “Compulsory Heterosexuality” one of these days when you have an hour and the patience to wade through some fairly dense and historically-situated theory. You can access the text online at the University of Georgia.

← Older posts
Newer posts →
"the past is a wild party; check your preconceptions at the door." ~ Emma Donoghue

Recent Posts

  • medical update 11.11.22
  • medical update 6.4.22
  • medical update 1.16.2022
  • medical update 10.13.2021
  • medical update 8.17.2021

Archives

Categories

Creative Commons License

This work by Anna J. Clutterbuck-Cook is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License

Meta

  • Register
  • Log in
  • Entries feed
  • Comments feed
  • WordPress.com

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

  • Follow Following
    • the feminist librarian
    • Join 36 other followers
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • the feminist librarian
    • Customize
    • Follow Following
    • Sign up
    • Log in
    • Report this content
    • View site in Reader
    • Manage subscriptions
    • Collapse this bar