Dear Sisters
Dear Katha,
PRINT
DISCUSS
E-MAIL
RSS
RECOMMEND...
Facebook
MySpace
Mixx
Digg
Reddit
del.icio.us
Furl
Ma.gnolia
Sphere
StumbleUponTo be honest, I think it was more a matter of trying to read Dear Sisters as a book.
You and I don't seem to disagree about what that book consists of. In Berkeley in the late '60s and early '70s, it was hard to walk down the street without having some self-published leaflet, advocating some sort of radical position from some fringe group or other, thrust into one's hand, or, more frequently, one's face. When I first got here, I made it a practice, out of general ideological sympathy, to accept and read everything I was handed. Soon, though, I wearied of the exercise; the writing was usually atrocious, the tone was strident and coercive, the forensic strategy bullying and lacking in nuance. So the fact that this book, as you suggest, is evocative of that period is not necessarily a point in its favor.
I was a history major as an undergraduate, and goodness knows I was assigned and plowed my way through many volumes of source material from the periods I studied. The documents collected therein weren't all of equal literary distinction; literary distinction was rarely their original raison d'etre, nor was it the justification for their inclusion in the various collections. But those were textbooks, published specifically for teaching purposes. It's hard to imagine anyone buying books like that for pleasure, or even out of a generalist's intellectual curiosity.
Your letter on Monday suggests that Dear Sisters is precisely such a book. I disagree. I believe it was intended to appeal to a more general readership. Isn't that the reason we're reviewing it here in Slate, a nonspecialist publication if ever there was one? Accordingly, it doesn't seem unreasonable for us to hold it to the same standards of literacy, readability, and interest to which we'd expect other anthologies to adhere. And let me say, even if we judge it merely as a collection of characteristic feminist writings from the period extending from the mid '60s into the early '70s, it does the period a disservice. There was good, sharp, provocative prose coming out of the feminist movement back then along with healthy dollops of dreck. What disturbs me is the way the two editors--and I don't dispute that they are considered social historians of distinction--seem, perversely, to have privileged the dreck.
You suggest the emotion behind the pieces looks to me "like hostility and hatred," and while that may indeed be true of some of them, it's not, in fact, the dominant impression I come away with. No, what I'm reminded of, rather, and most unpleasantly, is the way group-think held sway in radical groups in those reputedly liberated times. (Not, I hasten to add, in the women's movement alone or even primarily.) It's the recurrence of cant words and phrases; it's the employment of a question-begging vocabulary designed to stifle rather than encourage thought; it's the reluctance to engage one's allies in serious disputation--how much easier it is to say, "I know exactly what you mean" than challenge a dubious assertion--it's the apparent unwillingness to test one's notions against serious counterargument. It's the demonizing of all opposition, even if sympathetic or well-intentioned. It's the way a proper attitude is the primary test of political and social acceptability. It's the way in which the word "white" is invariably placed before the word "male" and the way those two words, once coupled, are understood to silence all queries, seal the case with an anathema. It's the way the phrase "consciousness-raising" always translates into "getting you to agree with me." It's the way in which the Leninist tactics of the Old Left were imported wholesale into the New.
And yes, I nevertheless did thrill to read "Hairy Legs Freak Fishy Liberal," one of the stronger pieces in the book, an example of genuine consciousness-raising (Interestingly, the "fishy liberal" apparently came to recognize the error of his ways.) And yes, I would have been proud if a daughter of mine had confronted the mayor of Pacifica when he urged female high-school students to enter a beauty contest, even if I would have counseled a slightly subtler approach than demanding the right to measure his penis. Some of the pieces in the book are entertaining and provocative, whether or not they're professionally written. But the preponderances are not.
And that's the nub of my complaint. You compare the book, justly, with a musty box of collegiate memorabilia. Well, I happen to have lots of boxes of memorabilia in my closet, and I wouldn't dream of publishing the stuff.
My argument isn't with feminism. It's with this collection.
Cordially,
Erik
Nine Is So Weird, You Should Probably Go See It
How Will Michael Jackson's Death Change Music?
What Jenny Sanford Wrote in Obama's Facebook News Feed
The 12 Best Cheeses To Serve at Christmas
Oops—I Forgot I Was Piloting This Plane
Can You Believe What Joe Biden Said This Week?
Reader Comments from The Fray:
[Notes from the Fray Editor: Try here for an interesting discussion of the format of the book, and here for "women get power through sex" (and follow the thread: "perhaps if men put less emphasis on sex...")]
If this feminist anthology is anything remotely like Tarloff says it is, it will conform completely to my impression of the most ardent feminists I have known since I was in high school a quarter-century ago--grim, dim, thoroughly intolerant, utterly predictable and generally unpleasant people with whom only the weather is a safe topic of conversation. Only with great difficulty can I remember more than one or two committed feminists whom I would not number among the dullest people I've ever met.
--Joseph Britt
(To reply, click here.)
To Joseph Britt:
Not surprised here either. I haven't known very many in-the-trenches civil rights activists, or revolutionary Catholic priests or lobbyists for ending the cycle of welfare-and-foster-care who were blessed with a sense of humor, a gift for joy and an easygoing attitude towards the ups-and-downs of social change. I will say that the ones who do have these qualities can melt hearts and change minds far more effectively than anyone else, but they are rare characters.
Why should these feminists be any different?
--Amy Bloom
(To reply, click here.)
[Note: Amy Bloom, a Slate contributor, is the author, most recently, of A Blind Man Can Tell How Much I Love You.]
One of the most frequent complaints about feminists is that we "don't have a sense of humor." I suppose that's in the eye of the beholder--but really, feminism and women's struggle not only for equal rights but for equal respect isn't really a light-hearted topic, is it? Why would you expect a description of our fight to be couched in terms of bonhomie and coquetry? When was the last time you read an article on slavery or civil rights that made you laugh aloud and slap your knee? Color me naive, but I don't hear anyone taking digs at Tolstoy because his writings were like reading a constant dirge. Some people call it art.
--Madelaine
(To reply, click here.)
Tarloff is right that words & ideas are linked--which is why the fact that no one comments on women's presence in the workplace is not a victory for feminism. Almost immediately (in the grand scheme of things) after women started making up half the workforce, it stopped being acceptable to discuss that fact. So what happened to all the opinions about sex roles that were previously expressed? They've become more tacit than ever. On the one hand, women get paid less than men--systemic, covert discrimination. On the other hand, many men resent and fear women for intruding on their perceived territory. By discouraging open discussion of their issues (distasteful as they are) we're reinforcing an environment of hidden hostility and ego trips. It's words and actions that need to be linked. Only when we've gotten to the point where no action needs to be taken to remedy our gender issues, will it be legitimate to say nothing about them.
--Toth
(To reply, click here.)
This book is yet another tedious example of White American social dialogue. Self-absorbed, moralizing, ignorant and oblivious to other cultures except in a missionary, disapproving kind of way. It is utterly useless to the large mass of humanity for whom women's issues are immediate practical and need to be solved within the framework of extremely slender economic resources, while preserving delicately wrought social structures and modes of dialogue built up carefully over centuries.
What a bunch of reckless, idiotic, self-centered, harm causing people these American feminists have been. American White Women have been liberated: sure--from being rich housewives. Now they are richer and lonelier worker drones-as are their white brothers. And who speaks to the rights of the children thus affected?
--A.S.Germain
(To reply, click here.)
The opposition to the idea of wages for housework has to have more intellectual content than that such wages would attract women to an ultimately unfulfilling career--as opposed to what, working as a salesman at Sears? Working as an entrepreneurial housecleaner for somebody else? I hope y'all address the class issue and its evanescence in "third wave" feminism, which seems, in dropping issues like housework pay, universal child care, and all references to medical issues outside of abortion, to have oriented itself entirely to those issues which resonate with its upper class members.
--Roger
(To reply, click here.)