A lightbulb moment - books and controversy, again, some more.
A (relatively) quiet wave of controvery has surrounded the recent call for submissions for an upcoming anthology. The book, co-edited by Jaclyn Friedman and Jessica Valenti is to be tittled Yes Means Yes!, and (just like Jessica’s previous books) will be published by Seal Press.
Although the call for submissions has met with general approval, getting reposted in all the usual places, it has (unsurprisingly) also met with resistance on a number of fronts. As with the previous book stuff, the framing, targeting, context and overall utility of the project are in question.
My first thought, to be honest, was “okay, and…?” After all, the topic is certainly a useful one, and I agree with nuanced forms of the general principles enumerated on the list. Sex ed, media representation, pornography, rape… they’re all Big Feminist Issues, sure. But I couldn’t shake the thought that, well, it was a little… fluffy. Not that there’s anything wrong with fluffy, per se, but if I wanted fluffy, I’d be listening to my Scott Westerfeld audiobooks, not reading a feminist anthology. Not my kind of thing, y’know?
(Admittedly, I didn’t pay too much attention to it. I’m certainly not submitting anything to anyone … my writing tends to be more reactionary/analytical than sparklyfresh new thinking.)
Reading it again, however, I noticed that the language used in the call had the same universalizing tone that had bothered me in other book contexts.
“[E]mpowering female sexual pleasure is the key to dismantling rape culture”
“How changing the pornography industry can stop rape“
“[G]ood sex (where women’s pleasure is central) can mean an end to rape culture“
“[T]he invisible lynchpin of rape culture: homophobia”
(emphasis mine)
… really? This language seems a little strong, for an anthology that seems so narrowly targeted. (Re)focusing on female sexual pleasure can do a lot, sure… but there’s more to rape culture than just that. Structural, judicial, and economic problems play into it in huge ways, for example… and although social change will do a world of good, it’s not going to be truly effective without combating these institutional problems as well. Not to mention, of course, all of the rapes that occur when there is no question about consent. But I’m getting ahead of myself.
As it turns out, I wasn’t alone on that front. Tekanji was already on it, and she enumerated a bunch of issues I hadn’t even thought of.
Now, I am 100% behind the intent of the book. If I had the time, I would definitely submit something (unfortunately I barely have time to write my WisCon paper, and I have until May to finish that). It’s no secret that I’m a sex-positive feminist and I believe that sex-negative attitudes — both conservative sexual shaming and liberal forced sexuality — are harmful to a truly equal society and I think this book is an excellent opportunity to get some positive ideas out into the mainstream (or at least feminist-leaning mainstream). The book will go on my Amazon wishlist when it comes out.
However (there’s always a “however” with me, isn’t there?), I am not so pleased with this part of the pitch:
Yes Means Yes! will fly in the face of the conventional feminist wisdom that rape has nothing to do with sex.
There are two basic problems that I see with that line:
1. It perpetuates a fundamental misunderstanding of what “rape isn’t sex” is saying.
2. It is setting the editors/contributors in direct opposition to “conventional feminist wisdom”.
She has wonderful analysis of those two basic problems, and a few suggestions for how it might easily be fixed. You should read the whole thing.
Unsurprisingly, the arguments that popped up were:
- a) Men need books like this! It’s safe and easy and won’t make them feel bad!
- b) You’re just nitpicking. Quit being OVERSENSITIVE!
- c) What’s the point of saying anything if it’s just going to be picked apart? Just because you don’t like it doesn’t mean it’s unworthy. What is she supposed to do,just shut up?
Nothing new under the sun there. Clearly, criticism of a specific thing is the same as criticism of the person who said or did or wrote that specific thing, and means that they should shut up forever and turn in their feminism card. After all, if it works for some people, it should work for everyone! Besides, if it could have been written better, it already would have, so your criticism is wrong because they did the best they could. [/sarcasm]
Ow. My cheek hurts from having my tongue thrust in there so firmly.
The point, of course, is that we’re already beginning to see the dynamics of criticism and yelling that we saw crop up before. Narrow, targeted critique (complete with affirmations and nice soothiing noises about the Big Picture) is treated as raging anger. Then, of course, the raging anger that comes after being dismissed and misread is easy to handwave away.
So what other critique is out there? I noted at the beginning that the framing, targeting, context and overall utility of the project are in question. Tekanji’s post addressed very well some of the issues with the framing and context of the project… but what of the rest of it?
Let’s turn to Sylvia, who asks one pointed question.
Do all rapes happen in the context of situations where people are nearing the point of having sex?
Suddenly, we’re at the heart of the problem. Focusing on consent, on the yes, on enthusiasm and porn and the media and sex… that’s all great. But that’s not all rape. It’s not all of rape culture. It is, in fact, a rather narrow part of it.
Sudy speaks to this so well, I just had a lightbulb moment.
Not one inch of my feminist blood believes that every womyn screaming an orgasmic YES would eradicate rape. Womyn’s voice is not the answer, not for this issue. It’s the world’s silence that prevents any true progression and anti-rape work must be held to an incredible high standard of inclusion. Am I reading this wrong? I just don’t see this call taking the megaphone to womyn raped in secret harvest fields or in the military; grandmothers gang raped in their own homes; womyn and men raped by religious clergy; womyn who are targeted because they are mentally ill; or the mother-daughter prostitutes trying to make enough money to get by.
Yes. There. That’s it. That’s the problem. Not that the book isn’t a good idea, not that it’s not a worthy undertaking, nor even that it’s not an important part of addressing the issue of rape. The problem is that it’s not universal. It addresses certain kinds of rape, brought about/enabled by/aggravated by certain aspects of rape culture. It isn’t the answer, it’s an answer, to a very specific subset of the larger problem.
… and you know what? Speaking only for myself… that’s okay. Narrowness and specificity are fine. Useful, even. Just be upfront about it. Be as narrow and specific in your framing as you are in your content. That’s it.
… but that’s just me. And that’s just me narrowing it down for the sake of the inevitable “but what do you want us to dooooo?” arguments. There’s a simple, concrete suggestion that should be pretty easy to implement even within the constraints of a publishing relationship. And even if the eventual published work can’t be framed that way (which is an interesting subject altogether; why is that the case? what can we do about it?), the discourse certainly can. It’s not hard.
I’m tempted to branch out from here. To talk about (as I said at Sylvia’s) … “how the continued pattern of universalizing from certain voices/perspectives has the overall effect of a) silencing certain voices that need to be heard, b) centering groups and phenomena that may not be most appropriately centered, and c) being fucking annoying. Or about how specificity of language is a pitifully poor goal in light of the Bigger Picture, and how real action would require moving beyond simply naming and recognizing limitations and into actively working to fill those gaps and lay that base. Or hell, even how the framing of the book (and the discourse surrounding it) encourages false dichotomies and divisions, and doesn’t actually help with the Big Picture.” That would be nice, right?
And, of course, any thorough workup of this issue would include these other awesome posts:
The limits of Consent, by Firefly
Stopping rape by saying yes instead of no?, by imfallingup
Semantics,Pneumatics, Erotics, and Dirt, by blackamazon
Stop Misrepresenting Our Own Movement, by Sudy
Yes? Yes! No., by Veronica.
(new!) my yes is not more important than her often-impossible no: here we go again (a joy killing narrative), by Theriomorph (thanks, Donna, for pointing that out!)
(new!) On rape, and privilege, and being seen, by Chris Clarke
(new!) Defining “Rape Culture” by CLD
(new!) In Which I Take A Side (or, When Feminists Don’t Get It) and And About that “Yes Means Yes” Thing… by Purtek
(new!) Fun with Feminism No Longer Fun, by Aunt B
.. buuuuut, I’ve blogged through my morning and through my lunchtime, and I’m buried in Secret Santa Hell (don’t ask), and I still have to figure out what to do with my car, and there was work I was supposed to do at some point this week that never got done because, well, car…. so I’m just going to hope y’all read the links and think about them.
OTM said,
December 21, 2007 @ 2:26 pm
Really great points about the essentializing language in the call for submissions. You’re so right - it’s one important aspect to dismantling rape culture, but it’s not the total key to it.
donnadarko said,
December 21, 2007 @ 3:21 pm
Hi, Mags. Changing the perception of women are commodities and objects to the perception women are human beings is an overall goal of feminism. Transforming sex cultures in which women are viewed as vending machines dispensing sex to human beings with sexual agency who enjoy sex mutually happens concomittantly. This could be class-based universalizing because not all sex cultures are currently being transformed by feminism.
donnadarko said,
December 21, 2007 @ 3:23 pm
women *as* commodities. Sorry. Hope that made sense.
donnadarko said,
December 21, 2007 @ 3:30 pm
That said your bolded quotes are pretty damn universalizing.
Aunt B. said,
December 21, 2007 @ 4:07 pm
You’ve brought up something I’ve been mulling over all week, but haven’t been able to figure out how to articulate. I think you’re absolutely right that they’re universalizing a specific issue, and I’m troubled that they can’t just be specific about what their doing (and accept criticism in ways other than pretending they’ve been mortally wounded). But, I think that, if they’re specific about what they’re doing, there’s another problem that comes up.
Here’s what I mean. When we were coming up (feminists in their late twenties, early thirties–the age of the editors of this book), one in four women was sexually assaulted. And when we talk about what makes up a rape culture, we’re thinking of it through a lens shaped by what the culture was like when we were most vulnerable to rape (not that we’re not always vulnerable, but I think statistics support me that most women are sexually assaulted (outside the family) in their late teens and twenties).
But rape has declined tremendously in the past decade, which means that the world women in their late teens/early twenties are in and what their circumstances are are very different than what we went through.
Which means that, even in the context of their narrowly focused book, I wonder how we can be sure that the perspective is looking at the world as it is and not as the editors think it is, because they assume it’s still how it is how it was when we were in the thick of it.
I was talking to a professor the other night about rape statistics and we were saying how, when we were in college, we were told that one in four college age women is sexually assaulted and now, the statistics they’re spreading at her university is that it’s somewhere between one in eight and one in ten.
And not that one in eight or one in ten is low–it’s pretty appalling–but it just seems to me that it must feel different than it did when we were that age and that the issues and the culture(s) might be different, too. And does the book reflect that? That things have changed?
I don’t know. Maybe it doesn’t matter. But I still wonder.
nm said,
December 21, 2007 @ 4:14 pm
Look, I know that a book will sell better if it’s presented as containing the answer to the question, and that that’s where a lot of this specific framing comes from. But still .. wouldn’t it be nice to read a collection of pieces that were going to revel in complexity?
Dw3t-Hthr said,
December 21, 2007 @ 10:17 pm
Speaking as one of those late twenties-early thirties women who was assaulted fifteen years ago now … I am kind of dubious about how this connects up to my experience in a meaningful way, to be honest.
The stuff that I’m utterly stuck on from back then is education — and given the Feds going on about abstinence-only these days, I don’t think that’s improved — because the essential issue for me was that I didn’t begin to know how to think about sex, and beyond that communicate my thoughts, work through the critical questions of “What do I want to do?”, “What do I want to do with this guy?”, “What do I want right now?”
A focus on my pleasure is either missing the point — the physical sensations were pleasant enough, after all, to completely throw me for a loop about working through what I wanted — or about a half-dozen steps past the basic stuff that I was stalled out on, which sent me skidding helplessly into the assault.
And I’m apparently talking about something in the target of what this is supposed to be about — assaulted and nearly raped by a boyfriend.
Yeah, maybe if he’d been paying attention and looking for enthusiastic consent it’d have worked out different. But the problem goes way back before that, into the question of “How do I know what to consent to?” Without knowing how to get there — because I didn’t know how to construct either a clear “no” or an enthusiastic “yes” because I didn’t know — the whole consent question becomes chasing unicorns through the mist, and virginity was no help for catching the damn things.
I don’t know. Maybe they intend to go at that somewhere; it seems a reasonably obvious thing to maybe back up to. But I’m left sort of with the whole … well, Letters from Gehenna feeling. “Hi. Here’s a postcard from my planet.”
Donna said,
December 22, 2007 @ 5:23 pm
You should read this one, Mags, and add a link to it too!
My yes is not moe important than her impossible no: here we go again (a joykilling narrative)
baby221 said,
December 22, 2007 @ 6:50 pm
*blinks* That thread makes so much more sense now. Thank you!
Helen said,
December 23, 2007 @ 1:05 pm
I’ve been thinking about various conflicts in the feminist blogsphere quite a bit lately, and all my thinking has kept returning to one basic point, that you so succinctly stated:
“Narrowness and specificity are fine. Useful, even. Just be upfront about it. Be as narrow and specific in your framing as you are in your content. That’s it.”
magniloquence said,
December 23, 2007 @ 6:28 pm
Breviloquence came up with this analogy:
“It’s like publishing a paper on crop rotation and saying it’s going to end world hunger.
No, it’s not. It’s going to help a small number of already not-starving people get a little bit more out of their bit of land. It’ll do it’s part to end world hunger, sure, but it’s not going to solve it, because there are still all these people out there dying because they don’t have crops to rotate (or not) in the first place.”
a couple of points. « Problem Chylde: Learning in Transition said,
December 23, 2007 @ 7:20 pm
[...] Magniloquence links to a series of posts that use the same framework for criticism. And Mags uses it herself. Yay cool intelligent people! [...]
belledame222 said,
December 23, 2007 @ 10:45 pm
suddenly overwhelmed by all the posts on this which i need/want to read…
and have a sneaking suspicion that, y’know, the spontaneous flowering of blog entries on the general subject is actually maybe more interesting and potentially valuable, harder work, than…well, the anthology hasn’t gone out yet, and mazel tov, I guess. Just, in general…yeah, “fluffy,” there’s been a lot of that about…
Devious Diva said,
December 24, 2007 @ 1:40 am
As I said on theriomorph’s blog, I have been following the discussions around this book proposal and I am totally overwhelmed by the intelligence of the comments dissecting this call for submissions. I was deeply disturbed by it but I haven’t been able to articulate that feeling. I am frustrated by the prospect of another blogwar about a book that will have nothing to do with me (or the many many people like me who are far more complex than we are ever given credit for) and I want nothing further to do with it. Make the money. Fine. Just don’t expect me to support it.
La Chola » Blog Archive » dipping a toe back into blogland said,
December 24, 2007 @ 8:50 am
[...] stuff I’ve noticed: Someamazing writing about the latest call out for articles. U.S. Soldiers stage mutiny refuse orders in Iraq Lakota tribe renounces u.s. citizenship (the [...]
daisydeadhead said,
December 24, 2007 @ 12:27 pm
I’ve been avoiding this controversy like the plague. ugh. But just wanted to say how great your comments were and how much they gave me to think about.
Love ya’s. :)
Fun with Feminism No Longer Fun « Tiny Cat Pants said,
December 26, 2007 @ 7:07 am
[...] I’m over at Mag’s, following her links, and I stumble aross this at Theriomorph’s. (I assume Chris is Chris [...]
Link Love for 2007-12-26 | A Slant Truth said,
December 26, 2007 @ 9:18 am
[...] A lightbulb moment - books and controversy, again, some more. « Feline Formal Shorts “Although the call for submissions has met with general approval, getting reposted in all the usual places, it has (unsurprisingly) also met with resistance on a number of fronts”. (tags: blogging whiteprivilege feminism) [...]
In Which I Take A Side (or, When Feminists Don’t Get It) « A Secret Chord said,
December 27, 2007 @ 7:46 am
[...] reference: Magniloquence Firefly Black Amazon Sudy [...]
Chiming In On The Controversy : Elaine Vigneault said,
December 28, 2007 @ 12:11 pm
[...] When I read the call for submissions for a feminist anthology titled Yes Means Yes here I thought it might stir people up, but I thought the stirring up would be about who got included and who didn’t. Instead, there are a whole host of criticisms found here, here, and here. [...]
Alas, a blog » Blog Archive » You can only say ‘Yes’ if you can say ‘No’ said,
January 9, 2008 @ 7:17 pm
[...] for ‘Yes means Yes’.Firefly, BlackAmazon, Sylvia, Tekanji, Chris Clarke, Sudy, Magniloquence, and Theriomorph are just some of the people who have written about the original Call for [...]