Faludi on 9-11 & masculinity
We’ve been having this conversation for a while here; it’s nice that someone with better amplification is doing it now.
Just hours after the Twin Towers were attacked on Sept. 11, 2001, Susan C. Faludi ’81 knew something fundamental had changed when a journalist who called her for a phone interview remarked, “This sure pushes feminism off the map!”
That statement would prove to be portentous, the Pulitizer-Prize winning writer and feminist said at the Harvard Book Store on Oct. 5, because it signaled a substantial shift in the national psyche of the American society, press, and government.
“The nation responded in ways…that are strange and disturbing,” said Faludi, who is a former Crimson managing editor. That set of responses became the focus of her new book, “The Terror Dream: Fear and Fantasy in Post 9/11 America.” In studying the media coverage that immediately followed 9/11, Faludi said…
James M:
She was on the radio here yesterday, and the interview’s available for streaming or download:
http://www.kpfa.org/archives/index.php?arch=22734
13 October 2007, 2:13 pmRequired:
Democracy Now did an interview with Faludi which can be seen here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yW-sHakFcd0
13 October 2007, 8:03 pmChris:
Susan Faludi’s going to be appearing in Portland, OR at Powell’s City of Books on Friday 10/19/2007. I submit this information not as advertising but in case any readers are in the area who would like to see her and perhaps ask her some questions. I’m also interested in hearing what questions people who can’t make it feel she should be asked.
STAN: I’ll be glad to send along a pdf of Sex & War, which covers some of this same terrain, to anyone lurking on this blog for the next week, if they think it might stimulate some thinking around Faludi’s new book and the discussion it will engender (haha).
14 October 2007, 5:46 pmAlan Bonard:
>STAN: I’ll be glad to send along a pdf of Sex & War, >which covers some of this same terrain, to anyone >lurking on this blog for the next week, if they think >it might stimulate some thinking around Faludi’s new >book and the discussion it will engender (haha).
OK Stan, I’ll take you up on that.
Cheers, Alan.
16 October 2007, 4:10 amShaukat Ansari:
Hi, I’d love to get a pdf copy of Sex & War. I’ve been waiting for it to be released in complete serialized form at Insurgent American, but so far only three of the chapters have links. Best,
Shaukat
16 October 2007, 4:27 pmStan:
My email is toast, and I can’t send pdf’s. So here is what I’m going to do/ The full book will be posted for download at Insurgent American in a day or so (thanks to Brian).
Lulu still has the book form for sale, but it’s not flying off the shelves. I can’t say I’ve ever made money from any writing except for FTW and a spot at Truthdig, so what the heck. The message seemed important enough to labor over, so why not get it out there.
My esteemed editor, btw, was the inestimable DeAnander.
16 October 2007, 5:16 pmChris:
Picked up a copy of Faludi’s book yesterday and have been flying through it. It’s really quite an interesting read. I have to confess to being only passingly familiar with her work and I completely misjudged her other title, Stiffed, thanks to not actually reading it. Shame on me. At any rate, the call for questions wasn’t meant to be confrontational.
Sex & War is an amazing read and it slays me that I can’t order it for Powell’s at any kind of retail discount. I even had a line item entered as a “Staff Pick” so I could push it before Soft Skull dropped the ball. The book is easily on par with Jensen’s Endgame as far as being “essential reading”. Please send Stan some money if you’re going to dowload the book.
STAN: I have a regular job now. They’ll even let me fix my teeth after I have 90 days on the job. (:
Don’t send contributions to me. Go to Insurgent American, and send money there if you are so inclined. Then it will go into maintenance, expansions and upgrades of the site and this one.
16 October 2007, 6:58 pmRequired:
Whoever set up the link at AI mixed it up. The link is actually directed to EnergyWar.pdf not Sex and War.
16 October 2007, 8:59 pmChris:
Stan,
17 October 2007, 12:25 pmwriting this as a comment in lieu of sending an email which, as you noted, isn’t really possible right now. Feel free to just read & delete as opposed to publishing it.
There’s a piece from last weekend at Counterpunch, supposedly in observance of Domestic Violence Awareness Month, that decries the threat to civil liberties posed by laws in New Jersey that purportedly make it too easy for conniving women to get restraining orders against their husbands and fathers of their children.
Counterpunch rarely addresses gender issues and so far this is the only piece they’ve put up this month relating to domestic violence. I’ve been drafting a letter to the author challenging some of his assertions but have yet to send it. I was particularly alarmed by some of the articles linked at the bottom such as Family Violence in America: The Truth About Domestic Violence and Child Abuse.
I was wondering if anyone out their in Insurgent American land would be interested in submitting something appropriate to Counterpunch in hopes of expanding coverage of the issue.
http://www.counterpunch.org/heleniak10132007.html
Chris:
Ms. Faludi asserts that the 9/11 widows “the media liked best” were the fragile, dependent ones, “who accepted that their ‘job’ now was to devote themselves to their families and the memory of their dead husbands.” But even she has to acknowledge that the so-called “Jersey Girls” (Kristen Breitweiser, Mindy Kleinberg, Patty Casazza, and Lorie van Auken) played “an essential role in forcing the creation of the independent 9/11 Commission,” and helped strong-arm “top White House officials into testifying before the commission.”
Instead of simply celebrating their achievements, however, Ms. Faludi tries to argue that the Jersey Girls were the exceptions to the rule — that they departed from the official script, unlike those 9/11 widows who “projected a persona defined by unassailably demure and virtuous composure” to the world.
The reviewer glosses over the fact that the “Jersey Girls” were villified and harrassed for their efforts. That they persevered in spite of this hardly undermines Faludi’s argument.
24 October 2007, 12:44 pmOnce again allow me to recommend this book and invite further discussion. Would like to send Faludi that PDF of Sex & War too.
chris:
Sorry…the comment above is actually only about half of what I originally wrote. I must have deleted the first bit. This was a reaction to the NYT reviewer Michiko Kakutani’s dismissal of Faludi’s theories without actually backing up her opinions of the book with anything of substance.
The review:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/23/books/23kaku.html
Kakutani imagines that Faludi has contradicted herself but her examples of this are extremely weak. Likewise her assertions that women’s voices weren’t in fact marginalized are almost laughable given the examples provided - “…Since 9/11, Hillary Rodham Clinton has become the leading Democratic contender in the race for the White House, with a good chance of becoming the first female president in history; Katie Couric was named anchor of the CBS Evening News; and women like Lara Logan of CBS and Martha Raddatz of ABC have been reporting from the frontlines of the war in Iraq.”
26 October 2007, 5:42 pmrootlesscosmo:
Chris: I just looked at that Counterpunch article. What a pile of vicious crap! The author begins by acknowledging that domestic violence is a very serious problem, but then spends the rest of the article undercutting this (irrefutably true) statement by dwelling on the injustice and hardships suffered by… the abusers! Note (among many other cynical distortions–I say cynical because, as a lawyer, Heleniak knows exactly how he’s twisting logic and law) the complaint that the person against whom the TRO is issued (whom Heleniak, revealingly, always calls “he”) may be ordered to pay the mortgage on the home from which the order excludes him. This, of course, is to do with his obligation to support his kids, an issue entirely distinct from the violence that forms the basis for the TRO. Then there’s the separation from “a beloved pet”–gag me with a spoon, these orders are issued (as Heleniak says) on a court’s finding of violence that may (Heleniak acknowledges, without irony) include rape, arson, and murder, and we’re supposed to feel bad for the guy because he misses his dawg? Again, these aren’t criminal convictions, the perpetrator can’t be sentenced to jail for these acts, the court is only trying to keep him from continuing the violence–yet Heleniak has the gall to liken this to post-9/11 government repression. This is the dick-swinging pig “Left” at its ugliest.
28 October 2007, 9:25 pmDeAnander:
Counterpunch has a long history of marginalising and sometime overtly dissing feminist writers. In general their position is hardline lefty-boy: pro-porn, pro-prostitution, nominally anti-rape and anti-battery but only when it’s being done by men they don’t like (when it’s men they do like, obviously the women are lying). IIRC they rather selectively refused to publish essays of Stan’s (even though he’s an accredited boy) which were too feminist. Somehow those essays were “too long” even though longer pieces on non-feminist subjects were acceptable
They have occasionally run a decent bit of feminist analysis, which always comes as a surprise to the reader (me, anyway). Jensen (R not D) occasionally gets some space there, and two or three times a year they may run an actual feminist article by (gasp!) an actual woman — though their favourite female contributors are, from off-the-cuff memory, the anti-Zionist K Christison (who writes in tandem with hubby Bill so she must be OK), and sex therapist Susan Block. Sorta places the goalposts for the acceptable field of discourse
CP definitely a boys-club, like most lefty web sites. What else is new?
So often with these “poor little men” articles one wonders whether a personal axe is being ground (on behalf of a buddy, perhaps)… the partisanship seems so ummm flagrant. The “beloved pet” trope just leaves me speechless… you can’t make this stuff up you know
29 October 2007, 12:02 amStan:
CP is also featuring global warming denials nowadays. Always a mixed bag over there; and yet — as you say — Bob Jensen and a lot of other valuable writers are there too. OTOH, when they featured Chyng Sun’s porn critique, it was an ambush… Nina Hartely was on hand the next day to declare Dr. Sun (gasp) “not pro-sex,” wtftm.
This piece is liberal law at its MacKinnon-best: the disappearance of power that operates prior to the law and its replacement by abstract “equality.” Comparing men on the domestic abuse issue to the victims of post 9-11 islamophobia!!! Sheesh!
29 October 2007, 7:52 amrootlesscosmo:
So often with these “poor little men” articles one wonders whether a personal axe is being ground (on behalf of a buddy, perhaps)…
Could be, or Heleniak might be a practitioner of family law with a particularly aggressive “father’s rights” edge and this article is basically trolling for clients. That would help explain the cynicism; Heleniak knows the difference between criminal prosecution and equitable relief, but his potential customers don’t, and he wants them to believe he’s as enraged as they are by the outrageous unfairness of it all. There used to be a similar lawyer in the Bay Area who routinely included, in his responsive papers, a claim that forcing his male clients to pay child support was involuntary servitude and hence prohibited by the 13th Amendment. It was nonsense, as the lawyer perfectly well knew, but the chumps he represented ate it up, and when the courts ignored it, that just reinforced their sullen conviction that “the system” is run by women and hostile to men.
29 October 2007, 9:20 amDonna:
I know this will likely fall upon deaf ears but nonetheless…
First, Heleniak states that domestic violence IS a reprehensible problem in this country. The fact that Heleniak identified ANOTHER problem in this country does NOT in any way negate the reprehensible act of domestic violence. Read it again with that in mind.
Second, the assumptions about Heleniak and his motivations further support his point. People ARE biased. “Women are always victims and need protecting. Men are always the perpetrators, never victims.” I’m sure it’s easier for some to go to bed at night (especially if you’re a father) believing that there’s another evil asshole lawyer in the world than to think for a second that the whole family court system needs to be fixed.
But, regardless about what you believe or what I believe about Heleniak or anything else, any PERSON ACCUSED has a right to a jury trial. Your fate, your freedom, your ability to see your children, should not be in the hands of one single person. THAT was the point of the article.
4 November 2007, 12:02 amrootlesscosmo:
If so, it was dishonest. People who are accused of crimes, carrying criminal penalties; have the right to a jury trial; it’s in the Constitution. People seeking restraining orders are not bringing criminal prosecutions (that role is reserved to the state) and the court may not impose criminal penalties, except if a lawful court order is defied, which usually constitutes criminal contempt (and entitles the accused to full 5th Amendment protection.) I stand by my point that Heleniak’s one-sentence nod to the seriousness of domestic violence is undercut by his exclusive focus on the wrongs allegedly done to men who–let me stress again–are found, as a matter of fact, by the court, to have committed acts of violence warranting the issuing of a restraining order. Heleniak knows the law (if he doesn’t, he’s committing malpractice every day God sends) and understands the difference between a petition for equitable relief (which includes restraining orders) and a formal indictment on criminal charges, but he deliberately conflates the two.
Are women “always” the victims and men “always” the perpetrators? Probably not. But come and sit, day after day and week after week, in Alameda County’s Domestic Violence Court (yes, they had to set up a special court to handle the volume of cases), and count petitioners and respondents and which are preponderantly men and which preponderantly women. I don’t understand what this sentence
I’m sure it’s easier for some to go to bed at night (especially if you’re a father) believing that there’s another evil asshole lawyer in the world than to think for a second that the whole family court system needs to be fixed.
means; it’s fathers who retain lawyers like Heleniak (whether evil assholes or merely venal), because those lawyers have the cold nerve to complain that some violent creep shouldn’t be subject to a TRO that separates him from his beloved pet. And those fathers are also the ones who believe, against all the evidence, that “the system” is biased against men.
4 November 2007, 6:37 pmChris:
Heleniak compares this one aspect of the Family Court System with the loss of civil rights connected to the Patriot Act, etc. and decries the lack of outrage on the Left. I would say that the Family Court System fails women more often than men. There is scant protection available for battered women and restraining orders do very little in that regard.
The entire Criminal Justice System is flawed and I believe there are innumerable threats to Civil Liberties intrinsic to it that pose a greater danger than this particular aspect of New Jersey Law.
There was a thoughtful article by Robert Jensen about gender issues a week or so after the article I mentioned, but instead of honoring Domestic Violence Awareness Month with some serious coverage of the issue, Counterpunch could only bring themselves to publish two articles, one of which sought to deflect attention from the issue itself. The article barely addressed actual domestic violence and inflates the image of false accusations in much the same way that the MSM prefers to hilight false accusations of rape over actual instances of the crime.
Your second point seems to make quite a leap of logic. Since assumptions are being made about the author, people are biased and assume that women are always victims, men always perpetrators? Sadly, women hardly get the benefit of the doubt in this society, culture, civilization. Knee jerk reactions in the culture at large more commonly kick the other way in my experience. Any challenge to the status quo is met with a backlash that pretends that those with the most power are in fact an embattled minority in danger of being marginalized and victimized.
I’m astounded at the longevity of the backlash against feminism and “political correctness”. Especially because the reaction seems so out of proportion to the supposed threat, at least as that threat is usually framed. It is true that reworking the language is a powerful tool in reshaping cultural assumptions about the value of human beings regardless of gender, race, etc. and therefore is correctly identified as a threat to The System.
4 November 2007, 6:49 pmCharles:
…the complaint that the person against whom the TRO is issued (whom Heleniak, revealingly, always calls “he”) may be ordered to pay the mortgage on the home from which the order excludes him.
^^^^^
CB: I believe in most cases the property is divided up at the divorce. So, the ex-husband wouldn’t be paying the ex-wife’s mortgage after the divorce. In some cases, where alimony is paid, the ex-husband might be paying for the ex-wife’s home after the divorce.
5 November 2007, 4:55 pmAlso, the husband might be paying the mortgage in an interim order.
rootlesscosmo:
Yes, property is usually divided when the marriage is dissolved, but (in California, anyway) sale of the family home may be deferred while the children are minors. Also, many TROs are sought long before there’s a divorce decree; a very common sequence has the husband escalating violence when he realizes the wife is taking steps to end the marriage.
5 November 2007, 6:58 pmDeAnander:
Interview with Susan Faludi about her new book.
Compendium of feminist and dissident commentary on the events of Fall 2001 and aftermath, compiled at the time.
Reviews of September 11, 2001: Feminist Perspectives anthology from Spinifex Press published shortly thereafter.
6 November 2007, 6:04 pm