Showing posts with label feminism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label feminism. Show all posts

Tuesday, July 14, 2015

Goodbye to magnificent Miss Ellie, mom of Susan G. Komen and Nancy G. Brinker

So sad to hear about the death of Miss Ellie Goodman, mom of the fabulous Goodman sisters, Susan G. Komen and Ambassador Nancy G. Brinker. It was a joy getting to know her while I was working on Nan's book, Promise Me. Miss Ellie was 90 years old then, still remarkably sharp, and one of the most authentically beautiful human beings I've ever known. 

Tough and direct, she'd seen her share of heartbreak, but there was not whiff of bitterness about her. She was joyful, generous and quick-witted, but also deeply pragmatic and very smart. Once you meet Miss Ellie in the pages of the book, you quickly understand why Suzy and Nancy grew up with a deeply ingrained sense of service to others and an unbreakable bond with one another.

From Promise Me:
Mom was beautiful and stylish, making the most of everything, even when there was little money to work with. Aunt Rose passed along an evening dress with a beautifully crafted pearl and rhinestone collar. The fancy gown was too big and not something mother had occasion to wear, but she snipped off the collar and sewed it onto a plain black dress Fritzi had made for her. And when that dress became faded and worn, Mommy snipped the collar off and sewed it onto the next generation. Old photographs show her blossoming into that collar. At first, on a girl of twelve, it seems a bit much, but by the time she was in her late teens, it looks elegant and proud. Instead of the collar glitzing her up, she’s the one making the old hand-me-down look like something special. 
… She understood the difference between service and servitude and wore her traditional role the same way she always wore the perfect shoes: she liked feeling comfortable, functional, and beautiful. Mom never questioned or denigrated the different choices made by other women, but this was her choice, and she never regretted it. An unquestionably liberated woman, my mother did exactly what she wanted to do…

A few months before my parents were married, Grandma Fritzi took ill with a kidney infection. A simple thing, these days: usually little more than an inconvenience. Ten minutes in the physician’s office. Ninety seconds at the pharmacy drive-through. Penicillin, the drug that would have saved her, was discovered quite by accident in 1928 and first tested on human subjects in 1939. In 1940, when Fritzi’s fever drove her to the hospital, that simple but effective remedy was in the pipeline and would be commonly available just a few years later—barely a breath in the scope of history. Meanwhile, sulfa drugs were all the rage, the most potent weapon there was against battlefield infection; soldiers were issued a powdered form in their first aid kits. But because of its low solubility, sulfanilamide tended to crystallize in the kidneys when taken internally. Fritzi’s doctor—drunk, Mother maintains to this day—accidentally gave Fritzi a toxic dose.

Poor Mommy crouched in the corner of the hospital room as her mother, this angel of mercy, died in twisting agony. It left her grief-stricken, infuriated, and radicalized. From that day forward, contrary to the “doctor’s orders” standard of the times, Mom was unfashionably fearless about questioning the judgments of God and doctors who think they’re God’s golf buddies…

Wednesday, October 17, 2012

The Illustrated Gaff (my favorite binder memes)

Last night in the presidential debate, Mitt Romney's handlers must had experienced a collective palm-to-forehead gasp when he said that his request for women candidates for his cabinet yielded "binders full of women." First of all, is it really such an ordeal to come up with qualified women for those positions? He gets special credit for the afterthought that it would look good to have some women on his staff? It would be easy to get serious about the subtext of the gaff. But it's a lot more fun to just hold it up to ridicule.

A few of the greatest hits:








Tuesday, September 04, 2012

Thanks, dumb@ss, for reminding me why I wrote this book.

In 1999, Sugarland, my second novel, was published by Spinster's Ink, a brave little feminist indie press, in the USA and by Bertelsmann in Europe. It's a modern retelling of the Psyche and Eros myth, expanding on some of the feminist ethos I think is beautifully present in that story.

The lives of the two protagonists, sisters Kit and Kiki, are quite similar at first blush: they both have two small children and all the dreams and frustrations quickly understood by most young mothers. But Kit is married to a gentle salt-of-the-earth working man, and Kiki is married to a man who beats her. The complexity of the story arises from an incident that is described in succinct emotional and physical detail very close to the beginning of the book: Kit is raped by Kiki's abusive husband.

There is absolutely no question about the fact that she is not a willing participant in this act. Later in the book, this guy violently beats and rapes his wife, and the language purposely echoes the previous rape, which is less physically violent. The entire story (in my mind) spins out of the silent, insidious damage that is done to Kit as her children and her sister's children are sleeping on the floor just a few feet away.

In trying to deny and cover up what's happened, Kit loses herself and methodically destroys her own life. The arc of the story is how she recovers, but in the downward spiral, one of the self-destructive things she does is have sex with her boss. Again the language was very carefully constructed to demonstrate the difference between the rape and this situation, in which Kit is a willing participant.

From the Library Journal review (emphasis mine):
"When both sisters become pregnant for the third time, suffering ensues: cataclysmic loss for Kiki and overwhelming guilt for Kit, unsure of her unborn child's paternity after a virtual assault by Wayne and a spontaneous tumble with her boss."
You can read the review in full on Amazon, but you get the gist. The victim of a "virtual assault" clearly does not meet the moral standards of "legitimate rape."

From Publisher's Weekly:
"Meanwhile, Kit has two quickie flings, resulting in a pregnancy of questionable paternity. Readers with true equality of the sexes on their minds may object that Kiki's husband's cheating is treated as an actionable offense while Kit's marital excursions are permitted the luxury of mitigating circumstances."
(PW's full review also appears on Amazon.)

I was stunned when I saw these two reviews and many others that had high praise for the book itself but utterly dismissed the entire premise on the grounds that this was not a "legitimate rape." No, this was a "quickie fling."

QUICKIE. 

FLING.

And what a feminazi I was for treating his "cheating" as an "actionable offense."

Note to anyone on jury duty: IT IS.

I was thrilled that book clubs far and wide embraced the book, but dumbfounded that so many women also condemned Kit for "having an affair" with her sister's husband. Book club discussions often centered on debates about what she could/should have done to prevent the rape from happening.

"Now you know why this book is important," said my wise editor, Joan Drury (one of the great unsung - or not sung nearly enough - heroes of publishing history.) "They're having the conversation. They're talking about it. That's a victory."

Thirteen years later, though Sugarland has enjoyed a little resurgence of popularity since I indie published the ebook edition, I'd begun to think the book was no longer relevant. Like a lot of feminist of my generation - those of us who came of age taking for granted women gynecologists, harassment laws, and access (theoretically) to safe, legal abortion - I slipped into a busy but complacent sort of ideology that allowed me to be a stay-at-home PTO mommy who wrote the occasional pro-choice letter to the editor.

Thanks to Todd Akin and the recent firestorm surrounding his galactically shit-headed comment about "legitimate rape," I've been reassured that Sugarland is still as relevant as ever. No dumbass is an island; this is not one guy's political faux pas, this is an agenda embraced by a LOT of people. (Check out Nerve's "Republican Guide to Female Anatomy.") This is a conversation women need to have with each other, with their daughters, and with the people who represent us in congress.

It would have been nice to think that the good fight fought by Joan Drury and her sisters would be sufficient to secure safety, health, civil rights, and respect for American women.

Note to my daughter: It wasn't. It never will be. The good fight goes on. Mamala's got your back, but it's your fight now. Get yourself into that voting booth and kick some ass.

Thank you, Todd Akin, for reminding my why I wrote this book.

In 1999, Sugarland, my second novel, was published by Spinster's Ink, a brave little feminist indie press, in the USA and by Bertelsmann in Europe. It's a modern retelling of the Psyche and Eros myth, expanding on some of the feminist ethos I think is beautifully present in that story.

The lives of the two protagonists, sisters Kit and Kiki, are quite similar at first blush: they both have two small children and all the dreams and frustrations quickly understood by most young mothers. But Kit is married to a gentle salt-of-the-earth working man, and Kiki is married to a man who beats her. The complexity of the story arises from an incident that is described in succinct emotional and physical detail very close to the beginning of the book: Kit is raped by Kiki's abusive husband.

There is absolutely no question about the fact that she is not a willing participant in this act. Later in the book, this guy violently beats and rapes his wife, and the language purposely echoes the previous rape, which is less physically violent. The entire story (in my mind) spins out of the silent, insidious damage that is done to Kit as her children and her sister's children are sleeping on the floor just a few feet away.

In trying to deny and cover up what's happened, Kit loses herself and methodically destroys her own life. The arc of the story is how she recovers, but in the downward spiral, one of the self-destructive things she does is have sex with her boss. Again the language was very carefully constructed to demonstrate the difference between the rape and this situation, in which Kit is a willing participant.

From the Library Journal review (emphasis mine):
"When both sisters become pregnant for the third time, suffering ensues: cataclysmic loss for Kiki and overwhelming guilt for Kit, unsure of her unborn child's paternity after a virtual assault by Wayne and a spontaneous tumble with her boss."
You can read the review in full on Amazon, but you get the gist. The victim of a "virtual assault" clearly does not meet the moral standards of "legitimate rape."

From Publisher's Weekly:
"Meanwhile, Kit has two quickie flings, resulting in a pregnancy of questionable paternity. Readers with true equality of the sexes on their minds may object that Kiki's husband's cheating is treated as an actionable offense while Kit's marital excursions are permitted the luxury of mitigating circumstances."
(PW's full review also appears on Amazon.)

I was stunned when I saw these two reviews and many others that had high praise for the book itself but utterly dismissed the entire premise on the grounds that this was not a "legitimate rape." No, this was a "quickie fling."

QUICKIE. 

FLING.

And what a feminazi I was for treating his "cheating" as an "actionable offense."

Note to anyone on jury duty: IT IS.

I was thrilled that book clubs far and wide embraced the book, but dumbfounded that so many women also condemned Kit for "having an affair" with her sister's husband. Book club discussions often centered on debates about what she could/should have done to prevent the rape from happening.

"Now you know why this book is important," said my wise editor, Joan Drury (one of the great unsung - or not sung nearly enough - heroes of publishing history.) "They're having the conversation. They're talking about it. That's a victory."

Thirteen years later, though Sugarland has enjoyed a little resurgence of popularity since I indie published the ebook edition, I'd begun to think the book was no longer relevant. Like a lot of feminist of my generation - those of us who came of age taking for granted women gynecologists, harassment laws, and access (theoretically) to safe, legal abortion - I slipped into a busy but complacent sort of ideology that allowed me to be a stay-at-home PTO mommy who wrote the occasional pro-choice letter to the editor.

Thanks to Todd Akin and the recent firestorm surrounding his galactically shit-headed comment about "legitimate rape," I've been reassured that Sugarland is still as relevant as ever. No dumbass is an island; this is not one guy's political faux pas, this is an agenda embraced by a LOT of people. (Check out Nerve's "Republican Guide to Female Anatomy.") This is a conversation women need to have with each other, with their daughters, and with the people who represent us in congress.

It would have been nice to think that the good fight fought by Joan Drury and her sisters would be sufficient to secure safety, health, civil rights, and respect for American women.

Note to my daughter: It wasn't. It never will be. The good fight goes on. Mamala's got your back, but it's your fight now. Get yourself into that voting booth and kick some ass.