Join Our Mailing List
Email:

Bookmark and Share


  Home > News > Additional Stories

Shots Magazine reviews the Jook

By Ayo Anotade
Shots Magazine
(Reiew of 1st edition of The Jook)

Welcome to the destructive world and lifestyle of Zelmont Raines, a one time Super Bowl wining all Pro Receiver. Raines once had a string of wealthy endorsement deals but these were terminated as a result of a statutory rape charge. However, his life has also become a complete mess as a result of his over indulgence with crack cocaine, expensive brandy and a fondness for entertaining sports groupies. While trying to maintain his lifestyle he also has to contend with three failed stints in a drug rehab unit, a paternity suit, a recurring injury and some misguided investments. Raines soon begins to accept as true the fact that the good times (for him) have come and gone.

Back in LA after falling out of the European League, he finds his one last chance is with the Barons an expansion team. Zelmont realises that apart from the fact that that he will no longer be making huge amounts of money, but that he will also no longer have the cry and adulation of the crowds and the female company that he has been used to. Zelmont’s problems continue when he is fingered for the murder of his girlfriend Davida and the religious football commissioner who is less than enamoured with his off the pitch behaviour is determined that he will not play pro-football again.

Raines soon realises he has met his match both morally and sexually when he encounters and falls for Wilma Wells, the smart, but devious and attractive lawyer for the Barons. While Zelmont is sexually attracted to Wells, his gut feeling tells him to stay well away from her, but somehow he can’t. Wells has hatched a scheme to rip off the mob-connected owners of the team and Raines desperate for money and always on the look out for ways of making a quick buck soon finds himself drawn into the plan along with his bisexual friend and former defensive tackle Napoleon Graham. Wells leads Raines into a world where the lines of violence that takes place in professional football can be considered to be insipid in the face of automatic weapons and constant double crosses.

If you like your crime novels full of greed, gritty, realistic and with lots of anatomically correct sex then this is the book for you. The Jook is an excellent and enthralling standalone novel from one of the best in the genre of noir there is no honour, no respect, no love but plenty of money. It contains so many elements that will please readers. From the profanity loaded street talk, to the end of the novel which is certainly reminiscent of a Jim Thompson novel and the homage that has without doubt been played to black-exploitation films, The Jook is more of a violent crime novel than anything else. While funny at times as well as being violent the reader is led on a ride that makes for entertaining reading.

In no way shape or form is this a politically correct novel, but who cares? It was not meant to be. It is a crime novel that not only makes you think twice about becoming an athlete, but shows what happens when pro-football and venal ambition collide in the end zone. If you read and loved King Suckerman then you will love this book as well.

Buy book now




BSC Review of the Jook

The JookJune 14th, 2009 by NerdOfNoir
BSC Review

There’s only one word for Gary Phillips’ The Jook and that word is fucking cool (you had to believe the Nerd would spice up said word with some Grade-A poop-mouth, am I right?). This fucking beast is just oozing with cool. I haven’t read any other shit from Gary Phillips yet, but if his other books are half as cool as The Jook, you can bet the fucking farm the Nerd’s gonna be on top of that shit toot-sweet.

The Jook tells the story of Zelmont Raines, a Super Bowl-winning wide receiver that’s fallen on hard times. He’s just been sent home to L.A. after getting the boot from the European leagues following his hip getting out of whack for the umpteenth time. Dude’s got bills and no money to pay them with, what with blowing all his NFL coin on drugs, alimony and lawyers (He swears she said she was legal). But Los Angeles is getting a new franchise called the Barons and nobody - not even the devoutly Christian NFL commissioner that hates the shit out of him - can stop Zelmont from trying out.

Surely he can make the team and start living the high life once again, fucked up hip or no.

But then a pretty little thing working for the owner of the Barons named Wilma Wells starts whispering in ol’ Zelmont’s ear, saying that there’s an easier way to gain the green. Namely, by ripping off some mobbed up NFL big wigs for cool millions…

So you have this classic femme fatale noir story with the neat twist of the main character being an ex-bad boy (well, not so “ex-“ I suppose) football player. That’s enough for me to recc this shit right there, but Phillips also loads this motherfucker up with tons of crazy sex scenes and gloriously violent, cinematic action sequences. Then there’s the fucking nutso heist shit towards the end and…

So yeah, you could say the Nerd dug this shit.

But what really makes it all work is Zelmont Raines himself. He’s telling his own story in a voice that is tres fucking cool, every other line dripping with distilled badassery. Zelmont’s a cocky motherfucker with flaws out the ass, but he’s so fucking enviably awesome (only a God like Jim Brown or Fred Williamson in the seventies could truly do him justice on the big screen) that you’re totally with him to the bitter end.

Like a double of Maker’s on the rocks, The Jook goes down easy then rocks your shit something fierce right afterward. It’s straight up hot sex, blazing action, and classic noir told in a bracingly modern, unabashedly cool way (I wish there were more words capable of expressing “cool”-ness, but there just fucking isn’t, dear reader).

So trust the Nerd, dear reader: your ass wants some of this shit right here. Your ass wants it in the right fucking now.

Buy book now




Women in Prison: An Unquiet Minority

Victoria Law talks about the unlikely acts of self-assertion by the correctional system’s second sex
By Adam Hyla
Real Change
May 6, 2009

When we talk about prisoners, we’re still mostly thinking of men.

And the mental imagery that the subject conjures — from the TV show “Oz” perhaps, or “The Shawshank Redemption,” or from the Willie Horton ad of the 1988 presidential election — now belies a subtle yet, for those involved, explosive change. For during the 1990s, while the number of males in U.S. prisons grew by an astronomical 77 percent, the number of women grew by an even more astonishing 108 percent.

Still, only 7 percent of all those in state or federal prison are women. But as their numbers rise, the needs specific to their gender push up against the walls of an institution designed wholly with men in mind. How do female inmates express their different needs and organize for their rights? That’s the question posed by Victoria Law’s new book, “Resistance Behind Bars: the Struggles of Incarcerated Women” (PM Press).

As a kid, Law knew plenty of kids who rejected “stultifying days learning nothing” in their Queens public school in favor of a Chinatown gang. When they landed at Rikers Island, she brought them reading material. In 1996 she began a books-to-prisoners program that sent free literature to inmates across the country. Since 2002, she has published the zine “Tenacious: Art and Writings from Women in Prison,” which collects articles, essays, poetry and art from across the United States.

Of “Resistance Behind Bars,” historian, feminist and indigenous rights activist Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz says Law’s first book is “an illuminating effort” that “focuses not only on renowned political prisoners, but on the lives of ordinary women of all colors and ages, many being mothers separated from their children…. The author is well aware that in that long fight, women prisoners deserve support and honor in their daily efforts.” Weather Underground historian Dan Berger writes that “Law documents the many ways women challenge the twin forces of prison and patriarchy, each trying to render women invisible. In the face of attempts at erasure, women prisoners resist to survive and survive to resist.”

Law reads with local investigative journalist and essayist Silja J.A. Talvi on Thurs., May 14 in Seattle, in an event sponsored by Books to Prisoners, the all-volunteer local nonprofit established in the early 1970s.

You name a few things that are sending more women to prison, like mandatory sentencing

With mandatory sentencing, the judge has no way to consider mitigating factors: that this is a first-time offense, a nonviolent offense. If someone is convicted of a nonviolent drug offense, in New York state it was mandatory up until this year that they’d have 15 years to life for having two ounces or more of a narcotic. In 2005 the laws were reformed and people could go back to court and have their sentences reduced, but prosecutors actually went back and said we want more, not less time, for these people. So it ended up not being much of a reform.

And mandatory sentencing happens all over the country.

In some way or form. New York started it in 1973.

But also you have cases where wives or girlfriends are convicted because they took a phone message, because they were in the house. Their partner, being a bigger player in a drug operation, has valuable information to trade, so he gets his sentence reduced. The person who just took a phone message doesn’t have any valuable information to trade.

I don’t know if there are statistics saying how many women have been incarcerated under the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986, which says you can be convicted of the same crime as your partner even if you did something seemingly inconsequential, but anecdotal evidence from talking to women in prison suggests many do.

You also mention poverty and the feminization of poverty.

In 1996 Clinton signed welfare reform, which led to the feminization of poverty in that many women who were on welfare now had time limits, and if you had a child while you were on welfare you had to sign a paper that said any future children would not be eligible for future benefits.

A study done fairly recently found that 96,000 people had been pushed off the welfare rolls who still had no formal employment. So that means you had 96,000 people trying to survive through some kind of informal economy: selling bootleg DVDs on the street, engaging in sex work, selling drugs. There’s 96,000 people, mostly women, unaccounted for.

Tell me about the lack of support systems for women leaving prison. How is it different from men?

I think there are gender issues that come up. We don’t view prisoners as female. The majority of women who go to prison are mothers and, of those, 65-90 percent are mothers of children under the age of 18. And so when they get out they’re trying to reunite with their children if they haven’t lost custody. Most transition places don’t think about, for example, hooking up former prisoners with affordable and safe childcare. If you have a three-year-old and no way to find child care that you can afford, you can’t be in a work program.

Do most female prisoners lose custody of their kids forever?

In 1997 Congress passed the Adoption and Safe Families Act, which stated that if a child has been in foster care for 15 of the past 22 months, the state automatically terminates parental rights.

Wow.

And given the gendered nature of society, it’s often the case that, if a father goes to prison, his partner, his mother, or his sister will step up. When a mother goes to prison, oftentimes their partner or spouse is already in prison or not around. So children of incarcerated mothers are five times more likely to end up in the foster care system [than children of imprisoned fathers]. And after the Adoption and Safe Families Act passed, the number of termination cases rose dramatically.

So there is a rise in the number of mothers losing their kids, since many mandatory minimums extend beyond 15 months. And since there’s a societal expectation that men are less able to take care of their children, men often have a better social network to fall back on before they go into prison.

How do prison officials make it difficult for mothers to connect with their kids from the inside?

It depends on where the children have ended up. Even if the number of women in prison have increased more dramatically than the number of men, they are still fewer, and their facilities tend to be further from the urban areas from which most incarcerated people are drawn. They tend to be in these rural out-of-the-way areas. So the travel time and the expense makes it prohibitive to visit.
In New York state there’s Albion, up near the Canadian border, which is like a nine-hour bus ride, you’re looking at having to stay overnight in a motel, you’re looking at having to get from the motel to the prison with I don’t know what kind of public transport in the town; and then you’re looking at a nine-hour bus ride back. Say it’s grandma and one kid taking the bus for nine hours.

You mention in your book an unknown but very significant prison rebellion, something commensurate with Attica —

The August Rebellion? In New York. It happened in 1974, after a prisoner was beaten by a guard and placed in segregation. It was just a few miles from Attica, in the same state, at around the same time, when a lot of attention was being paid to prisoner rights, prisoners’ struggles, prisoner activism. Somehow, 30 years later, nobody remembers.

How long did it last?

About a day. Female prisoners took over parts of the prison, held seven staff members hostage, and the remaining staff were unable to take back the prison and had to call in male state troopers and male guards from neighboring prisons. The women were basically protesting the beating of this prison organizer who had won a court case the month before saying women were not to be placed in segregation [solitary confinement] without some sort of hearing.

She took this to court and won, and in retaliation the guards beat her and placed her in segregation, again without a hearing. The women, instead of saying ‘That’s just what happens, that’s prison,’ fought off the guards and took over parts of the prison.

Do you have any hypotheses as to why events like that don’t get the same attention as an Attica?

I think in large part we define prisoners, still, as male. Women get a lot less attention, a lot less support. When women go to prison they get a lot less important, period.

In New York there’s Rikers Island, a whole island devoted to pre-trial detainment, and on visiting day on the men’s side there’s a three-hour wait, the visiting room is packed with all these women going to visit their men folk, whether it’s mothers visiting sons or wives visiting husbands or girlfriends visiting boyfriends. And then you go to the women’s side and it’s empty.

And I think also that, when women are organizing too, a lot of the historical instances I got from reading journals like Off Our Backs, publications that, if you’re not interested in feminist issues, you’re not going to read.

Mainstream feminism certainly hasn’t embraced prison issues.

No. I think feminism regards it as a travesty but doesn’t ask what are the underlying causes of this, what can we do, and what are women themselves doing about this — even if they’re relatively small things.

Things like demanding hot water and soap.

Or things that are more female specific, like sanitary napkins and tampons. Which is something again that isn’t an issue in male prisons. If someone is bleeding heavily it’s a sanitary issue and a human rights issue.

You had some heartbreaking stories about people with undiagnosed terminal illness — like cancer.

Prisons are very slow to deal with anyone’s health concerns, because it costs time and money. If you add onto that the idea that the prison must say, ‘Oh, now we’ve got to screen you for breast cancer?’ it’s a lot easier to just kind of pretend it doesn’t exist. And because it is someone in prison, with limited ways to challenge this, the prison feels like they can.

You write in your conclusion that prisons “function as a site of state sanctioned violence against women.” What do the rest of us get out of this?

A false sense of security. There’s been a standard set: in order to be safe, we need to have a place where we can lock up these quote-unquote bad people. I also think people aren’t thinking very deeply about these issues. If you ask who goes to prison, people think Willie Horton or Charles Manson. I don’t think people are asking why we’re locking up three million people at a cost of $40,000 each when we could be taking that money and using it on things like mental health services.

Do you have any heroes in prison resistance?

I don’t know if I’d call them heroes, because that’s rather personal, but there are many people who have been really strong and courageous and defiant in the face of having their dignity and liberty stripped away. People who are actively challenging things, like Carol Cooks, whose beating sparked the August Rebellion. There’s Mary Glover, who went in and filed the groundbreaking Glover vs. Johnson in 1977, which gave women incarcerated in Michigan the right to the same vocational training that men had. She went on to be part of 11 other civil rights cases against the prison.

There was a woman in Florida, Yraida Guanipa, who for eight years surreptitiously wrote to every church and civil rights organization — anyone she could get an address for — and asked, “We in this federal prison are 300 miles from our children in Miami; would you be willing to sponsor a bus so our kids could come up?” Under Federal Bureau of Prisons rules it’s illegal for prisoners to ask for help from the outside world; they can get charged with soliciting and get additional time. Even though she knew this was the case she kept doing it, and after eight years found an organization to sponsor the bus so the children of 50 mothers could travel to see their mothers for the first time in who knows how long.

And these are things that are not often recognized as acts of activism or resistance because they’re small, but they mean a tremendous amount to a lot of people

Buy book now | Buy eBook now | Back to Victoria Law's Page




The Herbivore's Dilemna

By Aric McBay
Briarpatch Magazine
January/ February 2009

The Vegetarian Myth argues that strict vegetarianism is not the best diet for our health, for animals or for the planet. The stance is controversial in environmental and animal rights circles, but the subject matter is thoroughly explored, exhaustively researched and very persuasive. Keith is adamantly opposed to fast food and factory farming, but believes that strict vegetarianism isn’t the answer either, arguing instead for a sustainable food system based on mixed farming and a diet that includes moderate amounts of animal products.

Lierre Keith does not come to this issue as an outsider. She spent 20 years as a vegan, eventually developing a degenerative illness - which she attributes to veganism in the book - before finally changing her diet and life to become a chicken-raising omnivore. If anyone is qualified to write this book, she is.

Keith explores the arguments surrounding vegetarianism on moral, political, nutritional and environmental grounds. She does not claim that common arguments against vegetarianism are correct, but that common arguments both for and against vegetarianism are often based on a superficial (or outright false) understanding of agriculture, ecology and nutrition. (For example, a main nutritional issue with vegetarianism is not the problem of getting enough protein, but the problem of getting high-quality digestible protein and enough of the nutrients found in animal fats to absorb minerals.) It’s true, she argues, that common assumptions about vegetarianism are simply wrong, but many false or misleading beliefs can only be unravelled by a deeper analysis of human and animal nutrition, medical literature and farming methods.

For example, we’re often told that eating vegetarian food will use less land and therefore feed more people. (Of course, to some extent, producing more food is beside the point, since famine almost invariably stems from unstable monocultures and inequitable distribution rather than from an overall supply shortage.) The original argument is about feed conversion - it takes more than 10 kilograms of grain to produce a kilogram of factory-farmed beef. But Keith points out that farm animals like cows are intrinsically grass-eaters, not grain-eaters, and that a diet of mostly grain is not healthy for cattle or humans who eat them. And while it’s true that a yield-per-acre of monocultured soybeans is higher than that of grass-fed beef, pasturing animals is far more sustainable, since it doesn’t require tilling the soil, the use of annual monocultures, irrigation and so on. The author is certainly not arguing that factory farming of animals is acceptable by any criteria, but rather that sustainable food depends on the use of perennial polycultures that include animals.

Keith’s in-depth discussion of agriculture and ecology meshes with her discussion of morality. A major shortcoming of moral vegetarianism, she writes, is that even though it’s true that eating meat means killing individual animals, large-scale agriculture wipes out entire species and vast areas of habitat. These effects are much larger, and indeed, worse for animals, than community-scale perennial polycultures. As Keith writes, “Agriculture is carnivorous: what it eats is ecosystems, and it swallows them whole.” Of course, all of this is merely scratching the surface of her analysis.

The author’s prose is clear and readable, but with the human touch. Despite being a non-fiction book covering some pretty heavy issues, the book is ultimately a personal story and as accessible and easy to read as a novel. There is sparse but appropriate use of tables and illustrations.

There’s no doubt that this book may be a challenging read for some vegans and vegetarians. But it’s not provocative for the sake of being provocative, nor is it any kind of attack on vegetarians. As Lierre Keith makes clear, her beef (so to speak) with vegetarianism is not that vegetarians have the wrong impulse, but that they have the wrong information about agriculture and ecology. (Of course, some vegans have thanked me effusively for sharing this book with them.) None of this will stop some vegetarians from taking any criticism of their diet personally - vegetarianism can be such a deeply held part of a person’s identity - but I hope that everyone who reads this book will take the time to understand the central arguments thoroughly.

Indeed, perhaps the people who are most likely to feel challenged by this book are those who might gain the most from reading it. When I shared this book with a friend of mine, another ex-vegetarian and long-time farmer, he told me: “Everyone who eats should read this book. Everyone who eats vegetarian should memorize it.” There might be a touch of hyperbole there. But there’s no exaggeration for me in saying that this is the single most important book I’ve ever read on diet, agriculture and ecology. And as a farmer and ex-vegan, that’s saying a lot.

Buy book now | Buy eBook now | Back to Lierre Keith's Page


The Vegetarian Myth Reviewed in Permaculture Activist

By Peter Bane
Permaculture Activist #72, Summer 2009

This book almost literally blew in the door one March day recently and I found myself still engrossed in its captivating story an hour after tearing open the brown padded wrapper. That doesn't very often happen.

Lierre Keith has written a compelling tale of her own near self-destruction from a vegan diet and a broadside against its being perpetrated upon or adopted by any other victims. She has converted 20 years of pain and suffering, and permanent damage to her health into a galvanizing passion to demolish the myth that she believe underpins the worldview of most who adopt vegan diet: "I want to eat without killing." You can't, she says, and if you try you'll die.

The arguments are compelling, and bluntly presented in three large chapters addressing moral, nutritional, and political vegetarians. Every field of grain or soybeans kills ecosystems and a myriad of creatures mostly too small to be seen and thus wept over. But they are just as dead as steers stunned and gutted in a meatpacking plant. At this point the enterprise of agriculture threatens all life on planet Earth.

Humans, unlike ruminants, cannot eat grass and survive. Our digestive systems are tuned for a variety of foods, always including meat. Many vegans, she reports from personal experience, do not know this, and fantasize worlds in which the lamb and the lion shall lie down, if not together, then at least on either side of a big fence from each other—eating the same uncomplaining plants. Can modern people actually be this ignorant? It seems so. Traditional diets have universally recognized the importance of flesh foods, especially animal fats, as the researches of Weston Price and many others have confirmed for over a hundred years. But modern people devoid of dietary or any other cultural traditions have picked up deadly memes, and many, especially younger people, have killed themselves trying to atone for civilizational violence.

Keith is no less an activist for interspecies justice and care of the earth now than she was when eschewing flesh in her diet. Are plants insentient? Do they care naught for their offspring? Of course, and the moral impulses that inform veganism are still sound: we should care for all life—animal, plant, and microbe alike—and especially its higher expressions in the organization of ecosystems and species genomes. She has simply recognized the appalling state of willful ignorance that drew her down a deadly road, and is determined to do all she can through personal testimony and powerful persuasion to prevent any others falling victim to the same form of self-destructive madness.

The author demolishes political vegetarianism by exposing its ignorance. On the pretense (and this is the one that caught me 36 years ago) that surplus grain and oil crops from the western developed countries were needed to feed the hungry of India, Africa, and Asia, many political vegetarians have persuaded themselves to turn away from healthy food and embrace arrangements of power that, were they seen clearly, would be understood as imperialist, racist, even genocidal—certainly unjust. No, people in the majority world don't need U.S. food aid. They don't need GMO corn or inedible soybeans. These countries need us to stop overpowering their own native farm sectors with our subsidized exports and our high-powered trade negotiators. She goes on to peel the covers back from the orgy of interlocked corporate boards that makes up the American food system. Scratch beneath the skin of Dean Foods or Odwalla Juice, Hain Food Group, Cascadian Farms or Muir Glen, and you find the likes of Chevron, General Electric, Monsanto, Nike, Starbucks, Texas Instruments, and WalMart as the majority stockholders. "So you're an environmentalist. Why don't you know any of this?," she asks.

Feedlot finishing, chickens in battery houses, and CAFO pork operations are lousy, and we shouldn't be eating that food, but animals living their lives under the sun on agricultural savannas like those nurtured by intensive graziers such as Joel Salatin and thousands of others are tremendously healthy. These carefully managed pastures are sequestering carbon, increasing plant diversity, and growing healthy food for people. Wake up! The author's words virtually scream out from the page. You who disdain eating flesh are fooling no one but yourselves.

Apart from the gripping passion of Keith's personal narrative, why should anyone already eating meat bother reading this book, with its indictments of fast food addiction, its tight analysis of the downward spiral of anorexia and bulimia, and its chilling litany of the deterioration of the body deprived of saturated fats and animal proteins? Because control of food is central to the control of our bodies, our minds, and the political system itself. The author has done a tremendous amount of focused research on the issues of diet and nutrition, ecosystem destruction, agriculture, and the manipulation of the food system, and the chain of money and control that weave an insidious trap for us all. You will learn many things you need to know here. Things on which your very life depends.

This book is a political exposé, a diet book, a treatise on anthropology, and a roaring condemnation of grain agriculture. Keith looks at agriculture's destruction of the land, amped up by fossil fuels to a massive holocaust in the past five decades, and finds no redemption anywhere. She admits that the Land Institute's project to breed seed-heavy perennial grasses could prevent much of the destruction of plow agriculture, but asks "why would we want to?" When Kansas and the rest of the Great Plains virtually overflowed with bison, antelope, and a host of other ruminants, flesh of which is superb food for humans, why would we try to replace it with something that may not ever work, and certainly stands little chance of feeding anyone for decades?

Grain isn't good for us. We love it because its seeds contain small amounts of opioids that give our brains a rush, but it causes all our tissues to swell when we eat it: our joints, our livers, our nerves, our blood vessels. Most of the degenerative diseases of modern life are linked to the inflammatory influence of a diet rich in refined carbohydrates and vegetable oils. We eat them also because they are the cheapest and most profitable calories that industrial farming and food processing can put on the shelf, and Money wants us to eat them.

Meat, Keith reminds us, especially organ meats with their superb assembly of minerals and saturated fats, literally made humans into our modern form. These readily absorbed, nutrient-dense foods allowed our brains to grow and our digestive tracts to shrink. We are still dependent on this complex of foods for wholesome nutrition, but most of us don't know it. Or should I say that the cultures that reminded us of its importance are eroding and disappearing from the modern world. And that the manipulation of memes by corporate advertising is killing us, one cheese puff at a time.

In the nature of a book that attempts to integrate personal passion and scholarship to a high degree, it might be too much to expect a program of reform to be well articulated. In her fourth chapter, Keith expounds on a simple formula for saving the world: Refrain from having children; stop driving your car; and grow your own food. Many will take issue with at least the first, though by any account we need to reduce the human population humanely and as fast as possible, but there can be little quarrel with the science of the latter two points. You won't find a lot here about how to make the changes happen—and let me tell you they are tough in the aggregate—though the author gives a good account of the logic of permaculture and the importance of perennial polycultures, rotational grazing, and no-till gardening. In recommending how "To Save the World," Keith takes a good lick at patriarchy and monotheism along with industrial farming and soy pseudofoods. By this point in the argument, you don't have to care if her polemic is over-the-top. The point has been driven home. Our food system is killing us—resist!

Published with the blessing and under the imprint of Derrick Jensen's Flashpoint Press, The Vegetarian Myth is an attractive and information-rich book that lives up to its subtitle. Aside from a few graphs used to illustrate the manipulation of cholesterol studies, the books consists of text only. The cover theme of Lascaux cave art is carried through on most pages with tiny glyphs of bison marking transition points in the text. No matter the lack of illustration, the writing is powerful and persuasive. Keith has every reason to be bitter and angry, but she has transmuted her anger and seasoned it well with a self-reflective humor that sweeps us along this road to recovery from a scorched earth. As I read her description of her first meat meal in 20 years (a can of tuna eaten reluctantly with a plastic fork), I found myself in tears. Ten years recovering from a quarter century of vegetarian folly myself, I never went through the agony that Keith lives with yet, but I knew the shattering epiphany she experienced with that first bite—coming home to the truth of her body, and of life itself.

Whether you are a vegan (run, if you can, to the bookstore), vegetarian, recovering from either diet, or never gave up meat at all, you will benefit from this author's painful mistakes and her laser-like focus on the path to a sane diet and all that it entails. Mark this one for the top shelf on cultural recovery.

Buy book now | Back to Lierre Keith's Aurthor Page




Are Vegetarians Living a Lie?

By Keith Goetzman
UTNE Reader
May 22, 2009

When an author comes out with a book called The Vegetarian Myth (Flashpoint Press), as Lierre Keith has, you know she’s not treading lightly, and the book is every bit as hell-raising as its name suggests. Keith comes from an ex-vegan perspective in this takedown of vegetarianism and veganism, and she acknowledges right away that she’s in for some pushback:

It’s not just the amount of information that makes the discussion hard. Often the listener doesn’t want to hear it, and the resistance can be extreme. “Vegetarian” isn’t just what you eat or even what you believe. It’s who you are, and it’s a totalizing identity. In presenting a fuller picture of food politics, I’m not just questioning a philosophy or a set of dietary habits. I’m threatening a vegetarian’s sense of self. And most of you will react with defensiveness and anger. I got hate mail before I’d barely started this book. And no, thank you, I don’t need any more.

Keith goes on to make her case, which basically is this: 1) Vegetarianism will damage your body. It damaged mine. 2) Our bodies are made to eat meat. 3) Converting to a vegetarian or vegan diet isn’t healing the planet if all you’re doing is eating veggies, fruit, and annual grains grown by large and distant megafarms, as most food is—even the stuff at the “natural” food store.

She is ultimately a radical environmentalist, which isn’t surprising since the book is published by Flashpoint, the imprint run by radical green author Derrick Jensen, who is quoted on the jacket front saying, “This book saved my life.” Keith suggests that as important as food choices are, bigger steps are needed to stave off environmental collapse. Namely, refrain from having children; stop driving a car; and grow your own food.

Oh, and by the way:

“Agriculture has to stop. It’s about to run out anyway—of soil, of water, of ecosystems—but it would go easier on us all if we faced that collectively, and then developed cultural constraints that would stop us from ever doing it again.

“Where I live, the wetlands need to return to cover the land in a soft, slow blanket of water. … The rivers need to be undimmed. And the suburbs and roads need to be abandoned. I have no great solution for how to make that economically feasible: I sincerely doubt it’s possible. I only know it has to happen, no matter how much we resist.”

Buy book now | Buy eBook now | Back to Lierre Keith's Author Page




Hill, Brenner Read at Moe's

Incredible Double

By Ken Bullock
The Berkeley Daily Planet
June 11, 2009

Owen Hill, longtime bookseller at Moe’s Books on Telegraph Avenue, will read from his new humorous detective novel about the Berkeley adventures of Clay Blackburn, book scout and private eye, The Incredible Double (P.M. Press), for the reading series he established and continues to run at Moe’s. Summer Brenner will also read from her latest, I-5: A Novel of Crime, Transport, and Sex.

“Summer and I read together on tour,” Hill said, “Five readings in New York City. We come off as a team. She writes hardhitting noir; mine’s full of jokes.”

Hill’s detective fiction comes from the building he lives in, around the corner from Moe’s, on Dwight Way, the Chandler Apartments, also the title of his first novel, published in 2002 and now out of print

“It’s a grand old building,” said Hill, “And would work well in a mystery, I thought. It became a kind of joke. I’d always written poetry. On a whim, when I was laid up, I started The Chandler Apartments. I must’ve joked around enough. I’d always been a mystery fan, knew the form as a reader; there’s a lot of pulp in my library. I stole from [poet] Jack Spicer’s Tower of Babel the idea of using the detective novel to poke fun at the poets in your circle. The Chandler Apartments is full of poets. In a bland world, poets are still kind of nutty. I respect them for it.”

Asked to give a thumbnail description of the story, Hill said, “With a short book—The Incredible Double is 140 pages—it’s hard to give a reading without giving the plot away! Clay Blackburn’s a book scout and poet at the end of his scouting run. It’s harder and harder to make a living as a scout, so he falls into detecting. Through some weird fluke, he’s hired to find a Berkeley nut who threatened a CEO, whose security forces don’t know how to penetrate the Telegraph Avenue underground.

Questioned about that impenetrable underground, which swirls outside Moe’s front window, Hill replied, “It’s as I’d like it to be. There’s not much of a Bohemia anymore, in this country at least. But there is in my novel.”

Pressed about Berkeley locations in the book, Hill cautiously answered, “Moe’s is in it a lot, of course, where Clay sells his books; a couple of my coworkers get to have cameos. There’s a kidnapping in Elephant Pharmacy—gone now. Clay likes to drink at Cesar’s; he meets his love interest there. My car mechanic, from Pete’s Automotive, happens to drink at Cesar’s, too, so another cameo.”

“It’s kind of a Berkeley thing,” Hill added, “An auto mechanic with an advanced degree. The overeducated underachiever. A friend’s plumber is a marine biologist! Such a beautiful part of Berkeley, which makes conversations so interesting. It doesn’t happen everywhere.”

Hill himself hails from Southern California, “Torrance, the suburbs, till 20, 21, then to Santa Cruz. I was heading for college, but dropped out. I did a stint as ice cream maker at Polar Bear, pre-Haagen-Daaz gourmet ice cream, then got a job as a buyer at Logos Books on the Mall. Then came to San Francisco, worked at Columbus Books, after Discovery Books went out of business there, near City Lights. Then did a stint at Shakespeare & Co. while I argued my way into Moe’s—‘Moe, I could buy for you...’ ‘No, no...’ Finally, he gave in.”

Moe gave in in 1986. Reflecting on almost a quarter century on the Avenue, Hill said, “It’s been a long ride, but it’s home. It’s the best bookstore I was ever in. Moe took care of his employees, and that’s still happening, post-Moe. It’s a little oasis.”

Expanding on the theme, Hill said, “I’ve always really liked public life, bookstores and cafes as the place to make a living. There’s a constant flow of characters.”

The reading series at Moe’s “started very informally, then snowballed. So many other bookstores were dropping off; we became the premiere reading series in the East Bay—readings once, twice, three times in a week. But it began almost by accident. There was a little garden area behind Moe’s we don’t use anymore. [Poets] Clark Coolidge, Michael McClure, Nanos Valaoritis were all friendly customers, shopping the poetry section. I said, Why not come outside? That was 1999. Then we came back in, later got a microphone ... Now I’ve invited myself to read in my own series. And I accepted.”

Bookseller, “curator” of the poetry section at Moe’s, himself a poet, detective novelist and humorist ... “I’m happy to be in the middle of it. Coming from the suburbs, I’ve been running away from blandness my whole life. Berkeley isn’t bland.”

Buy book now | Buy eBook now | Back to Owen Hill's Page




The Southside Sleuth

Incredible DoubleBerkeley Eccentrics Animate Owen Hill's Mysteries
By Anneli Rufus
East Bay Express
June 9, 2009

Clay Blackburn gets to prowl around strangers' houses and peek into their lives. He does this under the auspices of not just one but two different occupations: Blackburn, the bisexual Berkeley-based protagonist in a series of mysteries by poet/novelist Owen Hill, is a book scout: That is, he browses yard sales, estate sales, and other venues seeking secondhand volumes that he can sell for a profit. But he's also a private eye: very private, in that "I barely qualify. I don't have a license, don't carry a gun," Blackburn muses when about to meet a prospective client at the start of Hill's latest book, The Incredible Double. Books are his main gig. "But sometimes I take these jobs."

The job driving this novel, which Hill will discuss at Moe's Books (2476 Telegraph Ave., Berkeley) on Monday, June 15, starts when a drugstore-chain magnate claims he's been getting snail-mail death threats with a Berkeley postmark and hires Blackburn to scope out their source. This magnate, whose not-so-subtle-reference surname is Wally, "looked like Ross Perot, but with hair. ... Soap-opera hair, silver and sprayed." Sure, he's got his own crack security detail: "Gleaned from the Special Forces, mostly. ... They captured Saddam, for heaven's sake," Wally boasts. But "Berkeley isn't Iraq," so he wants Blackburn, who knows this turf — because "Berkeley gives 'behind enemy lines' new meaning."

That's the first measure of a maze along which Blackburn hurtles with his trusty clutch of Berkeley regulars: a conspiracy theorist, an eloquent ex-druggie, and his best pal Marvin, whom he calls "my own personal Jiminy Cricket. ... He's an unrepentant Communist, but it's easier for him. He owns his house."

Blackburn's bisexuality is remarkably rare in fiction. "Until recently," Hill says, "the 'bi' part of the gay-bi-transgendered coalition wasn't there. I had an agent tell me, 'There's a niche for gay, but not for this.' But I'm optimistic. Remember, Gore Vidal once said, 'Everyone is bisexual.' I like those demographics."

"Most people don't really know what their books are worth. They think they have 'rare' first editions." When they're wrong, "I try to let people down easy." When he does make a buy, "sometimes I feel like the smiling undertaker."

On the night of his reading, he'll share the mic with Summer Brenner, whose novel I-5 is, like Hill's, new from Berkeley-based PM Press.

Although his eccentric characters are admittedly often based on real people, he says he's had "no complaints so far. When I use real names, it's out of respect — Edward Dorn, Joanne Kyger. The scenes I'm documenting are full of these offbeat, interesting characters. Sometimes it feels like fish in a barrel. Any given day at Moe's I see enough characters to make up a novel." 7:30 p.m., free. See Calender Listing.

Buy book now | Buy eBook now | Back to Owen Hill's Author Page

 




PM Press at Think GalactiCon

Think GalactiConPM is going to Chicago to talk politics and fiction! Speculative fiction at that, you all know there's nothing we'd rather be doing, and we have some brilliant sci fi coming out soon ourselves! We'll have a table with all of the finest in PM wares, and one of the featured speakers is Josh MacPhee, author of Paper Politics, which will also soon be available through PM! So check out the con's website, and if you'll be in Chicago between July 26th and 28th, we hope we'll see you there, as it's not too late to register!

Think GalactiCon 


Taking a cue from Wiscon, the world's leading feminist science fiction convention, we are looking to create a space in which leftists can discuss politics and speculative fiction in an intelligent, engaging, and fun fashion. There will be multiple tracks of programming that seek to expand the boundaries of typical discussions. We want to explore issues of oppressive hierarchies, confronting topics of race, gender, sexuality, class and more. We have a lot of great ideas for a thoughtful and challenging weekend of radical politics and fiction, so we hope to see you come!

Featured guests:

Eleanor Arnason is a science fiction author who brings politics into her writing in thoughtful and engaging ways. Her works are subtlely complex explorations of how cultures engage with colonialism, gender, and sexuality, and the compromises individuals must make to find their place within them. Her first novel, The Sword Smith, was published in 1978 and she is the author of four other novels and numerous short stories. She is the winner of the Homer Award, the Gaylactic Spectrum Award, the Mythopoeic Award, and the very first James Tiptree, Jr. Award—an award for "gender-bending" science fiction. Check out her blog at eleanorarnason.blogspot.com.

Josh MacPhee is an artist, activist, and sci-fi fan. He made his first political zine in high school and has been engaged in activist projects ever since. He is the author of Stencil Pirates: A Global Study of the Street and editor of Realizing the Impossible: Art Against Authority. He has curated numerous art shows focusing on political art, most recently Paper Politics, which has been touring the US since 2004, and is the founder of Just Seeds—a collectively run distribution system for getting radical art projects out to the public. Josh was an early supporter of the Think Galactic reading group and was there when it all began. Check out some of his amazing artwork and the People's History poster series at justseeds.org.


PM's new offerings in Speculative Fiction:


Lucky StrikeComing Soon!

The Lucky Strike
By Kim Stanley Robinson
$12.00

Combining dazzling speculation with a profoundly humanist vision, Kim Stanley Robinson is known as not only the most literary but also the most progressive (read “radical”) of todayʼs top rank SF authors. The Lucky Strike, the classic and controversial story Robinson has chosen for PMʼs new Outspoken Authors pocketbook series, begins on a lonely Pacific island, where a crew of untested men are about to take off in an untried aircraft with a deadly payload that will change our world forever. Until something goes wonderfully wrong...

Plus: A Sensitive Dependence on Initial Conditions, in which Robinson dramatically deconstructs “alternate history” to explore what might have been if things had gone differently over Hiroshima that day; and an extended tour though the mind and work, the history and politics of our Outspoken Author. Surprises are promised.

“The foremost writer of literary utopias.”—Time

“If I had to choose one writer whose work will set the standard for science fiction in the future, it would be Kim Stanley Robinson.”—The New York Times

 

left

Coming Soon!

The Left Left Behind
By Terry Bisson
$12.00

Hugo and Nebula award-winner Terry Bisson is best known for his short stories. He is also a 1960ʼs New Left vet with a history of activism and an intact (if battered) radical ideology. The Left Behind novels (about the so-called “Rapture” in which all the born-agains ascend straight to heaven) are among the bestselling Christian books in the US, describing in lurid detail the adventures of those “left behind” to battle the Anti-Christ. Put Bisson and the Born-Agains together, and what do you get? The Left Left Behind—a sardonic, merciless, tasteless, take-no-prisoners satire of the entire apocalyptic enterprise that spares no one—predatory preachers, goth lingerie, Pacifica radio, Indian casinos, gangsta rap, and even “art cars” at Burning Man.

Plus: a no-holds-barred author interview and Special Relativity, a one-act drama that answers the question: When Albert Einstein, Paul Robeson, and J. Edgar Hoover are raised from the dead at an anti-Bush rally, which one wears the dress?

“Bisson is a national treasure!”
—John Crowley, author of Little Big

“Bisson can charm your toes off!”
The Washington Post

 

fireComing Soon!

Fire on the Mountain

By Terry Bisson
$15.95

Itʼs 1959 in socialist Virginia. The Deep South is an independent Black nation called Nova Africa. The second Mars expedition is about to touch down on the red planet. And a pregnant scientist is climbing the Blue Ridge in search of her great-great grandfather, a teenage slave who fought with John Brown and Harriet Tubmanʼs guerrilla army.

Long unavailable in the US, published in France as Nova Africa, Fire on the Mountain is the story of what might have happened if John Brownʼs raid on Harperʼs Ferry had succeeded—-and the Civil War had been started not by the slave owners but the abolitionists.

“Bold and provocative! Reminiscent of Ursula K. LeGuin and Marge Piercy!”
Booklist

“Visionary! This utopian tale is rendered both believable and desirable!”
Denver Post

“African astronauts land on Mars in the 1950s! Bisson’s approach is original, fleshed with vivid detail and utterly convincing characters...might-have-been history brought stunningly to life!”
Kirkus

“A talent for evoking the joyful, vertiginous experiences of a world at fundamental turning points."
—Publishers Weekly

“You don’t forget Bisson’s characters, even well after you’ve finished his books. His Fire on the Mountain does for the Civil War what Philip K. Dick’s The Man in the High Castle did for World War II.”
—George Alec Effinger, winner of the Hugo and Nebula awards for Shrödinger’s Kitten, and author of the Marîd Audran trilogy

“McKinley Cantor and Ward Moore move over! The South has risen again—this time as a brilliantly illuminated black utopia. Terry Bisson’s novel touched my heart, brought tears to my eyes, and kept me thinking about it for days after finishing the book. It’s an astonishing feat of re-writing history into something truly wonderful.”
—Edward Bryant, co-author of Phoenix Without Ashes and winner of two Nebula awards for short stories Stone and gIANTS




If Women Ruled the World

Nothing Would Be Different
By Lisa Jervis
LiP Magazine


The biggest problem with American feminism today is its obsession with women.

Yes, you heard me: It’s time for those of us who care deeply about eliminating sexism within the context of social justice struggles to stop caring so damn much about what women, as a group, are doing. Because a useful, idealistic, transformative progressive feminism is not about women. It’s about gender, and all the legal and cultural rules that govern it, and power—who has it and what they do with it.

A transformative progressive feminism envisions a world that is different from the one we currently inhabit in two major and related ways. Most obviously, this world would be one in which gender doesn’t determine social roles or expected behavior. More broadly, it would also be one in which people are not sacrificed on the altar of profit—which would mean universal health care, living wages, drastically reduced consumption, and an end to the voracious marketing machine that fuels it. The link between these two elements is clear: Both gender and race, as they currently exist, are socially enforced categories that shore up a consumer capitalist system by providing opportunities for both marketing and exploitation.
But much of the contemporary American feminist movement is preoccupied with the mistaken belief—call it femmenism—that female leadership is inherently different from male; that having more women in positions of power, authority, or visibility will automatically lead to, or can be equated with, feminist social change; that women are uniquely equipped as a force for action on a given issue; and that isolating feminist work as solely pertaining to women is necessary or even useful.

The influence of femmenist thinking is broadly in evidence today, from casual conversations in which arrogant know-it-alls are described in shorthand terms like “typically male” and “how very boy” to nonprofit groups that exist to promote the leadership of women—any women—in business and politics. It manifests itself in the topics that are considered most central to feminism. The problems feminism should be trying to solve are not caused primarily by a dearth of women with power. The overwhelming maleness of the American population of congressional representatives and physics professors, CEOs and major-newspaper op-ed columnists, is a symptom, sure, of a confluence of economic, political, and cultural forces that devalue women’s work, denigrate our ideas as less important than men’s, and discourage us from aiming high. Would more women in high places signify a change in that? Yeah. And that would be nice.

But any changes would likely be superficial: More women in high-paying corporate jobs might mean that women would finally be making more, on average, than 76 cents to the male dollar, but it would do nothing about the 35.8 million people under the poverty line—and it’s definitely not going to transform the values of profit maximization that keep them there. It wouldn’t even necessarily mean that large numbers of women were being paid wages closer to their male counterparts’. Like the wage gap itself, it would be a symptom of power at work, a signal that women are being allowed more access to the benefits of a destructive value system. If we’re fighting just for that access on behalf of women, without mounting a challenge to it, then feminism is, to borrow a phrase from Barbara Smith, nothing more than female self-aggrandizement.

Furthermore, the most pressing issues facing women worldwide—slave wages, inadequate health care systems, environmental degradation, the endless war and surveillance society of Bush-era neo-conservatism, and rampant corporate profiteering involved in all of the above—are a) no less important to feminists just because they also happen to be the most pressing issues facing men and b) directly related to the particularly ruthless brand of global capitalism we’re currently living under.

This vulture capitalism would not magically disappear if women were in charge of more stuff. Racism would not go away. Hell, sexism itself would probably be alive and kicking. God knows the gender binary would be stronger than ever. In short: The actual workings of power will not change with more chromosomal diversity among the powerful.

Even if, to stick with our example, the wage gap were eliminated through genuine equal pay for equal work, without a radical challenge to the economic system that structures all of our lives, it would most likely mean that men are now being paid as badly as women. (In fact, the narrowing of the wage gap since 1979 can be largely attributed to decreases in men’s wages.) And while that certainly seems fair on its face—if we all have to live under a shitty system, the burdens of shit should at least be shared as equally as possible—as a political goal it’s an admission of defeat.

Let’s take a quick look at some history. Femmenism is an outgrowth of the deeply flawed and largely debunked philosophy of gender essentialism: the belief that biology is destiny and that men and women’s bodily differences translate into universal and unchanging/unchangeable gender roles and traits. Essentialist thought dates back at least to the ancient Greeks, who saw men (of a certain class) as smart, strong, noble citizens and women as unfit to take part in intellectual exchange. Eighteenth-century philosophers laid down the natural law, which dictated that women’s childbearing bodies rendered them natural caretakers and little else. To this effort, scientists at the time contributed their data on things like skull size to confirm women’s lack of intellectual capacity. Similar modes of data interpretation were also useful in “proving” that black people were fit only for the hard physical labor of slavery and that poor immigrant folks’ criminal tendencies were evident in the shapes of their heads. Today’s version of this argument—with the same flaws in evidence and interpretation—comes from the evolutionary psychologists and brain researchers who assert all kinds of neurobiological explanations for supposed gender differences in everything from verbal skills to the propensity to cheat on a partner.

The first feminist activists, the suffragists and temperance women of the 19th and early 20th centuries, sought to use essentialist thinking to their benefit: Women, as the raisers of children and caretakers of home and hearth, had a natural morality that could be brought to bear in politics and against the social ills caused by excessive drinking. Feminist essentialism grew up along with the movement as a whole, as thinkers and activists in the ’60s and ’70s sought much-needed recognition for undervalued “feminine” attributes like cooperation and caretaking and as part of the struggle for gender equality. Feminist essentialism reached full flower in the backlash-laden ’80s, as rigorous intellectual work exploring the behavioral effects of gendered socialization—most famously, Carol Gilligan’s In a Different Voice—was broadly popularized, misinterpreted, and oversimplified as nothing more than a call to reverse the cultural values placed on essential male and female natures. Thus certain political and intellectual circles came to valorize women as inherently nurturing, peaceful, connected to nature, and noncompetitive, and to demonize men as bellicose, unfeeling, and destructive.

It’s important for me to pause for a minute and make a few things crystal clear. First of all: Yes, gender difference exists. Of course men and women often behave differently, see the world differently, and have different political views—when you’ve been raised with sugar-and-spice-and-everything-nice expectations and the knowledge that (if you choose to sleep with men) you’re just a broken condom away from a lifelong responsibility, it tends to make you both more empathetic and more likely to favor safe, legal, accessible abortion. Duh. But such differences are neither automatic (as the evolutionary biologists would have us believe) nor universal (as the cultural essentialists assert).

Second of all, the forces I’m referring to as those that have led to the problem of femmenism have been essential to both concrete feminist political gains and to feminism’s intellectual development. I am not at all suggesting it’s unimportant to call attention to the fact that the Senate is only 13% female, to encourage society to recognize the value of women’s unpaid childcare labor, or even to rescue politically neutral traditionally female pursuits like knitting from the pink ghetto.

Acknowledgement and discussion of culturally produced gender differences is essential to dismantling sexism—but the line between acknowledging cultural differences that demand examination and allowing them to persist unchallenged is a fine one indeed. Femmenism crosses it constantly.

And some of those alleged gender differences are easily disproved. If women’s maternal instincts and natural compassion will bring about a kinder, more peaceful world, what’s up with Condoleezza Rice? (It’s also worth noting that Madeleine Albright didn’t exactly transform the Clinton administration’s foreign policy into a bastion of benevolence, either.) If women were truly sympathetic to and cooperative with each other, Ann Coulter’s journalistic achievements would have made the media less misogynist, not more. A woman was in charge of Abu Ghraib when Iraqi prisoners were tortured by American soldiers; three of the seven charged with perpetrating the abuse are female. Inherently nurturing? Sisterly? Yeah. Sure.

More important, however, is that femmenist thinking threatens to drain feminism of progressive politics—and, in many cases, of any politics at all. Take, for example, a 2004 book called If Women Ruled the World. The changes this slim volume predicts would result from such ruling are both serious (“we would all have health care”) and silly (“business would be more fun!”). A few might even be accurate (“equal parenting would be the norm, not the exception”). But they are all assumptions based on a fallacy: that (as the book’s foreword asserts) “empathy, inclusion across lines of authority, relational skills, [and] community focus” are “values that women uniquely bring to the table.” This line of reasoning urges us to forget about forging the argument that our current healthcare system is inhumane, profit-driven, and inefficient. It gives us a pass on making the case for universal healthcare as the best solution to skyrocketing costs and 44 million of us without insurance. We won’t need to do that if we can just get more women in on that ruling-the-world game.

This tactic is taken up by quite a few feminist groups seeking to influence the political landscape. One of these is the White House Project, “a national, non-partisan organization dedicated to advancing women’s leadership across sectors and fostering the entry of women into all positions of leadership, including the U.S. presidency.” A female president is a tempting goal to pursue, an important symbol of gender equality, and, yes, someone whose inauguration will surely make me kvell even if I find her policies repugnant. But having a woman in the White House won’t necessarily do a damn thing for progressive feminism. Though the dearth of women in electoral politics is so dire as to make supporting a woman—any woman—an attractive proposition, even if it’s just so she can serve as a role model for others who’ll do the job better eventually, it’s ultimately a trap. Women who do nothing to enact feminist policies will be elected and backlash will flourish. I can hear the refrain now: “They’ve finally gotten a woman in the White House, so why are feminists still whining about equal pay?”

Other groups carry the “if only women ruled the world” belief to a wistful, apolitical extreme. Take the organization (and I use that term loosely) Gather the Women. GTW is “a gathering place for women and women’s organizations who share a belief that the time is now to activate the incredible power of women’s wisdom on a planetary scale.” One of its purported goals is to “celebrate women as global peacemakers.” However, they “seek not to change minds but to connect hearts.” Just how anyone is supposed to be a global peacemaker without trying to change anyone’s mind is never articulated. Then again, neither is anything these folks do, except have an annual conference with panels such as “Divine Goddess and Leadership.”

If the problem were confined to fringe, mushy-thinking non-organizations, it wouldn’t even be worth writing about. But even groups doing effective, important, progressive feminist work often fall prey to essentialist thinking. Code Pink’s Call to Action contradictorily declares that women organize for peace “not because we are better or purer or more innately nurturing than men but because the men have busied themselves making war. Because…we understand the love of a mother in Iraq for her children and the driving desire of that child for life.” Translation: It’s not that women are naturally more nurturing and peaceful than men—it’s that women are naturally more nurturing and peaceful than men.

This covert embrace of essentialist thinking (and the intellectual dishonesty that it requires) manifests in many of Code Pink’s central tactics. One of the group’s major activities has been sending delegations of parents and others close to either 9/11 victims or enlisted folks to Afghanistan, Iraq, and Iran. The delegations have brought humanitarian aid and drawn attention to horrific conditions caused by American military activities. But their very premise—that being a mother of a soldier is the best platform from which to speak out against the war—ensures that the resulting arguments are a plea not to cause unhappiness by sending a kid off to die rather than a principled stance against unjust and corrupt use of force. The former isn’t even a compelling moral argument, much less any kind of a political analysis. And when real political analysis is slipped into a femmenist framework, it’s easily neutered: In a keynote speech at the 2005 Center for New Words Women and Media Conference, Code Pink cofounder Medea Benjamin detailed the ways in which their peace delegates’ comments to the media were edited to remove commentary critical of the war and of the Bush administration so that only worry over their children remained.

Women’s eNews, a news service that, in the words of its mission statement, “cover[s] issues of particular concern to women and provide[s] women’s perspectives on public policy,” is yet another promising project that would be far more effective if it weren’t thoroughly mired in femmenism. While it is indeed imperative for the news media to recognize women as sources, experts, and commentators more than they currently do, an approach like Women’s eNews’ is patently unhelpful. Its May 9, 2005, cover story is indicative. Headlined “Mothering From Afar Extracts Heavy Price,” and accompanied by introductory text noting that “as a growing number of Latin American women migrate to the US, many of these women will spend the [Mother’s Day] holiday far from their children—some of whom have forgotten them,” the piece does little more than tug at readers’ heartstrings. When Women’s eNews defines “women’s concerns” as Ana and her plans to migrate north to better support her and 8- and 10-year-old sons, but not the underlying political economy that determines her decision to seek work in the US, it actually works to shore up the “feminine” realm of home, hearth, and kids.

Likewise, stories like “Female Dems Say Social Security Is Their Fight,” “Women Pioneer Biofuel to Save Mother Earth,” and “Record Number of Female Soldiers Fall” tightly circumscribe what women are supposed to care about. If Social Security were gender neutral, it would hardly be any less of a women’s issue. It’s not because “we’ve got kids and we are thinking generations ahead of ourselves,” as one of the sources in the biofuels article asserts, that feminists bring an important perspective to the environmental movement. And it’s damn sure not primarily because female soldiers are dying that we should be paying attention to the war.

But the problem with femmenism goes even deeper than these strategic missteps. Because it’s founded on gender difference, it retains a strong investment in gender divisions. Not only will we never dismantle gender discrimination as long as gender divisions are philosophically important to feminism, but we’ll end up reproducing the gendered oppression we’re supposedly fighting against.

Femmenism seeks a circumscribed set of qualities for womanhood the same way that conservative, gender-traditional patriarchy does. Gender conservatives see motherhood as women’s natural role; femmenists see motherhood (or the capacity for it) as the ultimate political motivator. Gender conservatives prefer to see women in the role of helpmate ; femmenists see women as uniquely equipped with superior relational skills. Gender conservatives justify male aggressive behavior by virtue of its being an inherently male character trait; femmenists criticize male aggressive behavior for the same reason. But what about those women (and there are many) who have no interest in parenting, who have crappy communication skills, who would rather compete than cooperate? Are they not women? More to the point, are they bad feminists?

This sort of gender essentialism can be particularly divisive when it comes to women’s and feminist activism, because it polices the boundaries of womanhood; implicitly or overtly, femmenist organizations, groups, and events require a certain degree of “femininity” for participation. Nowhere is this problem more apparent than in the tension between certain corners of the feminist world and trans and genderqueer movements. Femmenist thinking practically demands distrust of and even hostility toward gender-variant people. There’s simply no room in a movement overinvested in cherished notions of who women are and how they behave for the myriad gender identities that exist in our world: transsexual women who know they were born as women even if their genitals said otherwise; biologicially butch dykes who prefer male pronouns; intersex folks who choose not to pick a side; and many, many others.

But it’s the obliteration of rigid gender categories themselves, not any kind of elevation of the feminine, that is our best hope for an end to gender discrimination. And the fragmentation of gender that trans and genderqueer folks embody is our best hope for that obliteration. It’s exactly this challenge—the way that transgender and genderqueer movements are forcing us to ask deeper questions about what woman- and manhood are, how femininity and masculinity are defined and determined—that stands to enrich feminist thought and action immeasurably.

In spite of my generalizations, femmenism as I’ve been discussing it here is far from monolithic, and, like feminism as a whole, encompasses people and ideas with disagreement and contradictions aplenty. It includes folks as wide-ranging as liberal feminist organizations such as the White House Project and separatist crowds like those who attend the Michigan Womyn’s Music Festival. There are valuable aspects of each of these branches of feminism, and critiquing their femmenist tendencies does not have to mean rejecting everything about them. But it’s equally important to recognize that those femmenist tendencies are deeply antithetical to where feminism needs to go in order to stay effective and vibrant, to eliminate gender discrimination at its core, and to fight for a world where human rights are more important than profit.

If we continue to believe, hope, or even suspect that women, simply because they are women, will bring pro-feminist policies with them into the corridors of power, we will be rewarded with more powerful women in the mold of our aforementioned warmongering secretary of state; anti-choice, anti–civil rights, anti–minimum wage DC Circuit Court of Appeals nominee Janice Rogers Brown; and business-as-usual corporate execs like the women occupying top slots at Avon, Xerox, Citigroup, ChevronTexaco, Pfizer, MTV, Procter & Gamble, Genentech, the New York Times Company, and more. If we allow the fact of our femaleness to motivate our objection to, say, the war on Iraq, we are forced into asserting that a feminist position is one of simple concern for the deaths of civilian women and children. We will have to abandon opposition to the war on more substantively feminist grounds: because it involves killing people in order to support an unsustainable way of life for overentitled Americans and secure profits for the corporations that depend on our energy-guzzling, buy-crazy ways for their revenues.

If we cling to any gender categories at all, we lose out on tremendous liberatory potential. In other words, the half-witted, sentimental obsession with women that is femmenism causes sloppy thinking, intellectual dishonesty, and massive strategic errors. Thanks to the tremendous feminist work of the last century, we have the opportunity to leave that obsession behind. If vital feminist work is going to continue, we need to seize it.

Back to Lisa Jervis's Page



Search

Quick Access to:

Authors

Artists

New Releases

Featured Releases


The Unknown Revolution: 1917-1921

The Road Through San Judas