a couple of points.
Chris’s allegory rocks more than Everyman and Piers Plowman combined:
An argument by allegory: If someone hits you over the head with a banjo that’s assault, not bluegrass. You can offer the victim all the music appreciation classes in the world. Music appreciation is a fine thing. But it won’t change the culture of violence that allowed the attack.
(I willingly took Medieval Allegory in undergrad. You will forgive me and overlook my geekery.)
I dislike when Blackamazon is in a bad mood and wish I could take her to get sushi and top shelf bottle of dark rum:
Notice in this entire rant I never mentioned a name or person ( except the one whose gender you managed to get wrong) because gasp I treat work how it should be treated
ON IT’S OWN FUCKING CONTENT ACCORDING TO THE INTERNAL LOGIC AND STANDARDS IT SETS FOR ITSELF AND THE AUTHORS STANDARD OF VOICE
TRY IT SOME TIME
Why? Because Blackamazon does use these standards and this effort consistently — and meanwhile, so-called “critics” (“windbag asshats” is the appropriate title for where their true credentials lie) try to dismiss her for tone, her typing style, her cursing, or completely plagiarize her excellent points without naming her or even providing a decent link. It’s as if the thought doesn’t even occur to them, and it’s not the first woman of color to which this has happened.
Magniloquence links to a series of posts that use the same framework for criticism. And Mags uses it herself. Yay cool intelligent people!
Theriomorph kills joy with so much flair that it inspires better joy afterwards:
Calling out privilege, narrow focus, and the dominance of narrow and privileged voices in mass media is not creating or contributing toward a hierarchy of pain – pop culture privileging of the concerns of upper & middle class American women, most of whom are white (again, still) is.
That statement alone is a winner, but the rest of her entry is also an excellent read. Very glad to have found her blog. It’s also the best rebuttal to the “argument” tomemos makes in response to Kai’s pointed criticism. Kai responded to a hierarchy of priorities and value already set in motion by the limitations of the call of submissions; his comment does not establish that hierarchy so much as call attention to it by pointing out what’s neglected.
I agree that American/Western feminism needs to incorporate more non-white, non-Western viewpoints, but I think that process needs to be additive, rather than subtractive: we should focus on contributing to dialogue, rather than dismissing projects as unhelpful before they’ve even been completed.
The best way to contribute to dialogue is not to label valid criticisms as dismissal. Not agreeing with someone’s subjective, qualitative assessment is cool, but “nuh-unh, you shouldn’t say it’s bad” is not the same as responding to the reasons behind that assessment.
That’s…uhh…
…dismissive.
Perhaps the worst characteristic of the revolution is feelings will be hurt.
Ah, well.
Anyway, the term “enthusiastic consent” pisses me off because it gives the vibe of “you have to consent harder.” I have quibbles with its diction but not with its idea because I know it’s deeper than that. But placing enthusiasm with consent really makes it seem like you’re asking the consenter to put in more effort to make the consent noticeable and appreciated, and that request runs completely counter to the idea of inspiring better communication and more mutuality during sexual intercourse. And yes, I still say it puts the onus on the consenter the way it’s framed and not the person requesting consent. It still relies on the framework of sex as commodity to be exchanged. Within the context of the book, it’s more problematic. If the anthology is targeting acquaintance rape in white middle-class heterosexual rape culture, it is truly taking enthusiastic consent into its framework, and it does NOT want to paint it as women having to work harder…then I hope the work does not fall under a women’s studies bookshelf in Borders. Because the people who need to see it within that framework — the men — they likely will not see it. Women will read it, women most likely with some affiliation with academia, some women who are probably new to feminism… the audience probably will be a majority of women. What’s my point? Women in that equation are the consenters, and it would be misleading to read something labeled “enthusiastic consent” in a book titled Yes Means Yes and expect them not to think that saying yes or no actively enough would slow rapists in their tracks. It’s simplistic, but it also takes the term at face value.
I spoke with Trinity off the record about this term, and she and I agreed that a better and simpler way to refer to the tenets of enthusiastic consent without the problematic verbiage is mutuality. Mutuality speaks to people in all types of relationships, relying more on attentiveness to communication cues — verbal and nonverbal — and would reduce the chances of accidental rapes from situations involving unconsented penetration or contact between people who have a semblance of respect for each other.
It wouldn’t work in situations like war or humiliation or stranger rape or…well, there are links up there.
I need more alcohol; this was easy to write! I hope it’s in English!
Why can’t I send you alcohol through the internet? This internet, I begin to suspect it is not all it was cracked up to be!
I want this for a bumper sticker. I am not a sloganeer by nature, but this was priceless.
I enthusiastically assent to this! YES. And that is why I can’t take Roy’s post seriously (as anything but a spiteful attack on imfallingup, anyway): It’s the obvious conclusion. I agree with you that it might be simplistic, but it IS acknowledging the book’s stated aims at face value. For Roy to act as though that were a preposterous and absurd notion–you know, I still haven’t seen him or anyone else tell me what the real point IS, if not “consent more enthusiastically.” Oh, I see plenty of people hopping mad that anyone would think “consent more enthusiastically” was the point, but I don’t see anyone saying “No, no, THIS is the point, actually.”
I’m starting to suppose that perhaps there’s no “there” there. That emperor looks nekkid to me.
ilyka
December 24, 2007 at 1:33 am
>>perhaps there’s no “there” there.>>
mm. and, is it just me, or am i getting the strangest sense of deja vu?…
the ironic thing is, all these posts which have just blossomed up about this, I think that, well…i dunno; that’s almost kind of an anthology right there, practically, seems to me…
belledame222
December 24, 2007 at 1:49 am
Well, you’ve got great and real points there – it shouldn’t be about “enthusiastic consent”; that’s looking at the situation ignorantly.
If you managed to sneak some alcohol home, you should send some over to me. It’s just beer and wine mostly over here; though I have to say coffee-flavored vodka and lemoncello (lemon flavored liquor) are pretty good.
isolator86
December 24, 2007 at 2:49 am
Ilyka, I’m wondering the same things. It’s one thing to answer challenges to premises with some engagement; it’s another to repeatedly defend it under the banner of “no, that’s written wrong; no, you’re reading it wrong.” If someone reads it the way it’s intended to be read (which really isn’t the standard for reading something in the first place but let’s say it is) and that person draws the same conclusions, where will the logic of the framing take you to deal with those arguments?
Belle, I’ve been noticing and worrying about the same thing. I’m wondering how many people will actually contribute to this anthology from these discussions, and I’m wondering how much of this work is being incorporated in its revisions. How much free anthology work we’re doing.
See Ryan, it’s not necessarily ignorant; it’s misleading. There are better ways to write about consent and mutual respect, and “enthusiastic consent” is a misnomer for that interaction. And no, no sneakin’ alcohol home — I tried that recently and my mom found it and accused me of being an alcoholic; led to all sorts of nasty and stupid accusations. I save my drinkin’ for social gatherings. Lemoncello sounds scary unless you can make it into a crazy lemonade. :-p
Sylvia
December 24, 2007 at 11:25 am
It’s not scary, silly; it’s quite tasty
. Wow, you actually tried to sneak home alcohol…bravo on your confidence, but ouch.
Yeah, I was thinking of putting “almost ignorant” when I was typing my comment – I had a feeling that would have been more correct. Misleading is a good way to describe it, yes.
isolator86
December 24, 2007 at 11:56 am
You know, I really think there should be some sort of rule for Boyfriends Of Feminist Bloggers that says something like “you do not need to come to her aid.” Because there’s only one time I’ve seen a Boyfriend come to the aid of his Feminist Blogger where he didn’t make things worse, and that was Mark S. coming to Ilyka’s aid in the horrible Sadly, No thread that — with all due respect to Mark, whose “aid” was very thoughtful — would have been very difficult to make worse.
Chris Clarke
December 24, 2007 at 1:07 pm
I agree with the criticisms of the book/pitch — they’re all bang on. So I’m not defending the book or criticizing the criticisms, here, just the enthusiasm/consent idea is one I happen to be fond of, so I want to try to explain how I understand it.
The idea of “enthusiastic consent” doesn’t make sense, and definitely does sound like the point is “consent harder.” I don’t know who’s responsible for that corruption. The idea is supposed to be “The opposite of rape is not consent. The opposite of rape is enthusiasm.” (these lines are from the mouth of Hugo Schwyzer, who I know is unpopular with some people, for good reasons; but this idea is an excellent one nonetheless). The intent, I think, is to put the burden on each person to make sure his/her partner is showing enthusiasm (not just assenting), and to take anything less as a no. So that’s the opposite of the way the idea is getting presented now, basically.
I’ve used the phrase “only ‘Yes!’ means yes” before, which I think is helpful, particularly in helping people understand why date rape and spousal rape are still rape. It just means that, when initiating sex, you’re looking for a clear yes, not just the absence of a no.
“Yes Means Yes” just sounds to me like a weird sort of jab at the “no means no” folks, just as the pitch sounded like a jab at, well, all feminists except the authors.
Anyway. Sorry if I’m just saying things people already know.
Daisy
December 24, 2007 at 1:27 pm
Thanks for the link, Sylvia – have been really happy to have found your blog too. I would LOVE to buy the anthology of all the conversations sprung up around this. Assuming it was published independently, yes, rather than %^@$% plagiarized.
Theriomorph
December 28, 2007 at 10:29 pm