Feminist Biographies and Tell-All Confessionals
It is an honor to have my book discussed so seriously-- and at such length!-- by writers I admire. Thank you, everyone.
One of the surprises about the response to the book for me is that it is taken as a tell-all confessional, in which, as Rebecca Traister wrote in Salon, I "caper naked as a jaybird." I don't know how naked jaybirds are (don't they have feathers?), but we have indeed become rather stuffy if other women are embarrassed by the common life experiences I write about.
One feminist friend of mine, for example, was critical of a passage in which I say (about an all-woman party my then-mate talked me out of going to ) that actually, the exciting thing about parties was the prospect of meeting men. Don't I like to talk to women? she asked. Don't I love my women friends? Well, of course! But is it really shocking to admit that part of what gets you out of the house at the end of the day is that little romantic spark of possibility? (For those horrified by the spectacle of middle-aged romance, I am a solidly and happily married woman. The passage in question takes place in my youth, when, as i write "we were drunk on the life force, hunting for fathers for the babies we didn't know we wanted to have.") Imagine if a man had written a comic passage about passing up an all-male party, because actually, he liked to meet women! No one would blink an eye.
Men can admit that they actively seek romance, love, sex, women (or for gay guys, men). On this, and many other subjects too, they can be frank, gross, angry, despairing, ecstatic, vindictive and people think it's great! (look how everyone misses Jack Kerouac now).Women, it seems have to act as if it's all the same to them if they have a date from one year to the next. At least, in print they do.
I am not in any way comparing myself with their talent and accomplishments, but if you take a look at the biographies of feminist writers, from Mary Wollstonecraft and Rebecca West to Emma Goldman and Simone de Beauvoir, you will find there was a lot of romantic strum and drang going on, a lot of struggle, and a lot of excitement too. The challenge is to make those experiences into something worth reading. it's not for me to say if i achieved that, but i can say that for me, It's never about subject matter, always about the words on the page. Even an anal-sex memoir could be a good book. If it was a good book.
Thanks again, everyone. I've really appreciated the discussion.
What a great way to close the discussion, Katha. Your defense of the writer as artist was sorely needed.
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
October 4, 2007 1:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gracious and wise, as always. I was imagining you appreciating it along the order of appreciating a root canal treatment, fully aware of the strong chances of the eventual positive outcome.
October 4, 2007 2:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Honestly, you need to stop reading reviews of your book, you'll make yourself sick.
October 4, 2007 2:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Even an anal-sex memoir could be a good book. If it was a good book.
i.e., never judge a book by its pucker
e.g. is eram a atrum quod tempestuosus uredo (it was a dark and stormy blight)
October 4, 2007 3:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Imagine if a man had written a comic passage about passing up an all-male party, because actually, he liked to meet women! No one would blink an eye.
Indeed. In fact, outside of a handful of bachelor parties, I can't recall ever even having the opportunity to go to an all male party. Do such things exist?
October 4, 2007 5:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Men can admit that they actively seek romance, love, sex, women (or for gay guys, men). On this, and many other subjects too, they can be frank, gross, angry, despairing, ecstatic, vindictive and people think it's great! (look how everyone misses Jack Kerouac now). Women, it seems have to act as if it's all the same to them if they have a date from one year to the next. At least, in print they do.
There have been a lot of stereotypes and broad generalizations thrown around in the discussions this week about what men are like, and about the various "freedoms" they have or are alleged to have. Several of these comments just don't match up with my own personal experiences. At best, they seem to characterize a loutish subclass of men - mostly single and in their early 20's, and leave out just about everyone else.
I have been married now for 21 years, and since that time I really cannot recall a lot of "frank, gross, angry, despairing, ecstatic, vindictive" conversations with other men about women. I personally can't remember the last time I heard a man in my circle of acquaintances being gross, "ecstatic" or vindictive in discussing his wife or female partner. You do sometimes hear anger about women. But it generally comes in the form of low-key grousing; and I seriously doubt that it exceeds the anger expressed by women when they are talking with their female friends about men.
Most men I know are - for the lack of a better word - gentlemen, which in part means that they refrain from coarse and vulgar language in discussing the women they know - or at least they haven't talked that way since they were 21 or 22. In my conversations with other men, the details of their marriages are, for the most part, out of bounds. What one is able to gather about their relationships with their wives comes out only from very brief comments and the most subtle hints.
As far as I can tell, at least from my own personal experience which, granted, is limited, women are much freer in talking with other women about the men in their lives then are men in talking about the women in their lives. Admittedly, I'm sort of a family guy, and don't do a lot of poker nights or other "boys night out" kind of stuff. Maybe other guys are yakking it up about their closest personal relationships all the time, and I'm just missing out.
Personally, saying anything negative about my wife when she's not there to give her side of the story seems both unfair and a violation of my marital bond. But in a sense, I treat all my personal relationships are like that. I have a very strong aversion to talking about people behind their backs, and when others attempt to draw me into such conversations, I tend to resist and change the subject.
As far as men admitting that they are actively seeking romance, I have to say that I have never heard a man say he was seeking more "romance" in his life. Not one. Never.
I do know men who have admitted to seeking love, looking for someone they can love and who will love them in return, even if they are uncomfortable with the word itself. My sense is that love does not strike most men as a particularly romantic thing. It's something very real, unaffected and direct and a solace in what might otherwise be a rather harsh and unpleasant world.
October 4, 2007 7:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've said some pretty coarse things from time to time but my woman friends have matched me word for word.
I dunno, I don't deny that there are crude, entitled men out there. But you'd think we're all a bunch of Al Bundys. So far as my experience has gone, some of the things I'd say in defense of the modern male life just seem silly to even say. Like, "I've had many female bosses and mentors!" Ugh. Yeah, so has everyone.
Then we have people apologizing for liking sports... I mean, come on.
I'd say this -- feminism has totally made men better. I'm glad I'm my age now and not 50 years ago. I think I've had better more fulfilling relationships because of feminism. And I think it's all so obvious at this point that I feel stupid for typing it.
Stupidly yours,
destor23
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
October 4, 2007 7:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
There have been a lot of stereotypes and broad generalizations thrown around in the discussions this week about what men are like, and about the various "freedoms" they have or are alleged to have.
I think this sort of misses the point. I take statements like the one you refer to here not to be descriptive statements about actual male behavior, but rather hypothetical statements about what is possible, intended not to denigrate men but to expose a double standard.
You can take issue with the analysis being offered in this regard, certainly. But to take it as an attack on men seems just misguided.
October 4, 2007 8:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I didn't take the body of these statements as an attack on men; but just as I said stereotypes and broad generalizations that, based on my own personal experience, are inaccurate.
Several earlier comments by different contributors have been overly broad claims about the way men actually do behave or think. And some, like the one I cited in the above comment, have been about what men can do - what they are socially permitted or encouraged to do or think. In this second case, the idea seems to be that men can be gross, vindictive, etc. in their public discussions of their relationships with women, while women are not socially permitted the same level of frankness in their public discussions of their relationships with men. Well, of course, what is socially permissible varies from one social milieu to another, but in my opinion, Ms. Pollit is severely underestimating the strength of social expectations and prohibitions on male discourse about women, at least male discourse outside the limited circle of young, single men. In my experience, men who say vulgar and crude things about women are considered ... well ... vulgar and crude. So it's just wrong to think there is no social sanction against saying these things.
And at the level of popular discourse at least, the situation appears to be precisely the opposite. There are whole genres of literature, scads of talk shows, etc. that are devoted to frank female exploration of their relationships with men. This part of our culture seems to dwarf forums and genres devoted to male discussion of their relationships with women. And I think this is in part due to the fact that men are generally expected and encouraged to be more reticent in what they divulge about their personal relationships with women. What would be more typical in our society: a book by Jennifer Aniston about how she was treated badly by Brad Pitt, or a book by Brad Pitt about how he was treated badly by Jennifer Aniston? I really think it's the former. This has already been pointed out by some commenters.
So, if there is indeed some amount of backlash about Ms. Pollit's book, I don't think it has much to do with a difference between what women, in general, are permitted to say as opposed to what men, in general are permitted to say. The issues is more about the expectations placed on noted feminist intellectuals and leaders in particular.
Feminism is rooted in the awareness that women have historically been subjugated to men, and at least part of the feminist movement is about escaping from that subjugation and triumphing over this power disparity. But if a strong woman has a love affair that goes bad, and the emotional entanglement and emotional abuse cause her to be "thrown off her game", then she has, temporarily at least, been re-subjugated. Feminist leaders, in particular, are expected to be above all that.
If an African slave, circa 1861, wrote a memoir of his years in servitude, that would be part of an accepted genre of confessional memoir from the time. But if Frederick Douglas wrote a memoir about how he took a few months off from his activism to serve a white master, I imagine their would have been a huge backlash. For better or worse, I think this is how people do look to feminist leaders when it comes to relationships with men, and why some will inevitably be disappointed if one writes a memoir about being used, deceived, betrayed and taken advantage of.
October 4, 2007 10:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Katha, can't wait to read your book! It's great to read your response here.
As far as I can tell, at least from my own personal experience which, granted, is limited, women are much freer in talking with other women about the men in their lives then are men in talking about the women in their lives.
Now, see, why not??? I remember asking my husband once if he had told his friend(s) about something fairly heavy that was roiling around in his mind (long story, convoluted emotional family situation) and he looked at me like I was crazy: Huh? Women would be on the phone all day over it, but men keep it to themselves. No wonder they have heart attacks.
Why are men like this? Inability to "share" or trying to keep up a pretense of being invincible? My spouse is not a tough guy, so that sort of resistance to talking about emotional realities is always surprising to me.
In such a cultural context, it's not surprising a fearlessly honest memoir gets mixed reviews; emotional truth is still embarrassing to some people, particularly from feminists.
October 5, 2007 7:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Doesn't this just kind of prove a point, though?
I mean, you are talking about your husband in a frank way.
For example, would your husband ever say that you were not a tough woman? I would certainly never say that about my fiance... not because I keep my emotions to myself, but because I feel that would be insulting to her.
Emotional truth of oneself is fine. Espousing emotional truth of another person is, in my opinion, a violation of his or her privacy.
You do know about the social split in "responsibilities" between the sexes that precipitated the feminist movement, right? Men are from Mars, and all that? It's the same old society that taught women to be subservient, in the kitchen, and having babies.
The only difference is... there's no national movement for men that's comparable to feminism.
Rather than ask why men are like this, why not ask what have we - as a society - done to change the millennia of social pressures on men to be the strong, silent, hunting, power-broking, emotional bedrock Atlas that we're supposedly expected to be?
~~~~~~~~~~~
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.
Come visit PROJECT: Lucidity
Where everybody knows your name...
unless you use a pseudonym
October 5, 2007 10:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Inability to "share" or trying to keep up a pretense of being invincible?" I would not be so hasty to phrase the question judgmentally. Men might think they are sharing essential problems, say, while they might think that women are blathering. Or they might speak of a problem to a friend but then draw back from making another put up with the details out of consideration for the other's feelings rather than anxiety over self-image.
Think of what happens when one shares public spaces with cell-phone users. What to one person is an ability or necessity to share to another is out of control. It's all how you look at things, and it's important to discuss and acknowledge conflicting gender perspectives without getting into stereotypes.
John
http://www.haberarts.com/
October 5, 2007 11:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Men might think they are sharing essential problems, say, while they might think that women are blathering.
Is that supposed to be less judgmental/not getting into stereotypes?
October 5, 2007 11:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Women, it seems have to act as if it's all the same to them if they have a date from one year to the next."
Perhaps only women who are feminist icons, and heterosexual, and I don't think even really then.
Something that I'm wondering about, with respect to "sharing" and this book, is: did that cheating boyfriend, who wanted BJs in the morning, have any say as far as such information about him appearing in print? (And for all I know, he did.) No, I'm not shedding any tears with respect to the "cheating" part, and his sexual preferences, at least as mentioned in reviews and reviews of reviews, don't seem terribly unusual. But I would never dream of discussing a sexual partner's intimate behavior with someone else, much less broadcast them to the world. And though I haven't seen his name mentioned, that's essentially no protection to his privacy. Self-revelation is one thing, but here that seems to have become other-revelation as well.
October 5, 2007 2:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wait... men to go bachelor parties for the male companionship?
I always thought it was because of the fantasy that someone would get lucky with the stripper. Isn't that why women, as seen in the stereotypically Hollywood media-version, try to keep men away from bachelor parties?
Man, I need to go to some more enlightened bachelor parties.
~~~~~~~~~~~
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.
Come visit PROJECT: Lucidity
Where everybody knows your name...
unless you use a pseudonym
October 5, 2007 2:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Is that supposed to be less judgmental/not getting into stereotypes?" Yes. It was asking that we consider alternative scenarios, partly in order that we may sympathize with other perspectives, partly in order that we may free ourselves from them. If I wanted to say, oh, screw you, women just blather, I would have said so. I asked you to see another point of view so that you see that, just as you wouldn't accept that one, it might be good to see the limits and stereotyping of yours, too. Isn't that part of the feminist project?
But what do I care. If people can't see past the name calling, I told ArtA I'm not here for consciousness raising, and let them go do what they want. It's as stupid as if I waded into the Israel-Palestine threads.
John
http://www.haberarts.com/
October 5, 2007 2:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
My friend, it was just a question, no name calling involved. I found what you were saying kind of self-contradictory. I still do, actually, but I'm headed out the door at the moment, so will leave that for later...
October 5, 2007 5:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I didn't take the body of these statements as an attack on men; but just as I said stereotypes and broad generalizations that, based on my own personal experience, are inaccurate.
It's a counterfactual; it might be wholly inaccurate and yet express something true. It might be that no men act the way described, and also true that, if they did, they would be treated better than women who acted in the same way.
That said, I'm not sure if that is a true claim.
I guess the way to evaluate it would be to ask, if Ms. Pollit's book had been written by a man, could he have received the same views? I don't know, having read only these threads. But I expect that you might be right to say that it has something to do with her status or role within a political movement, rather than simply being a woman per se.
October 5, 2007 7:07 PM | Reply | Permalink