She's really setting me up for a Georgia O'Keefe joke here.
I wanted to say that the first thing I noticed is the tone (we'll get there shortly), but that’s not quite true. The first thing I noticed was, not surprisingly, the first page of the book. Before the foreword, preface or introduction (all of which are present) there is an author’s note stating “Unless otherwise stated, throughout this book the words ‘gentleman,’ ‘man’ and the like are used to refer to the tightly knit, male social power structure as it is recognized in American patriarchal society.” She then goes on to explain that there are nice men in the world, and she respects some of them, but that first bit is extremely problematic for me. I understand this disclaimer is intended to be a “I don’t hate all men, so please don’t get worried by my terminology”. But the book is called Cunt because she wants any term that gets used for the vagina to be a positive one, so she’s trying to reclaim the term. Clearly she feels strongly about the power of words. And yet, here in the first sentence of the book, she says that she plans to use the word “men” to mean a very specific sect of males and corporations and a number of other intangible things, specifically in America. The idea that she will then be saying things like “men keep us down” and “men don’t give a shit about women or what they think” and think that it will have no repercussions is ludicrous. Given that she makes up words or sticks words together or repurposes words slightly throughout the book, it seems neglectful that she wouldn’t come up with some term that can mean what she wants it to without using the word we already use to mean, you know, all males.
And yes, dear readers, she makes up words. I won’t say much about it, but the whole tone of her writing is very specific, I’m sure very intentional, and EXTREMELY annoying. If you plan to pick this book up, expect a lot of ain’ts, don’ts (instead of doesn’t), and in’ s (instead of ing). This is mixed in with a hefty dose of new age vocabulary*, and while both are irritating separately, they’re especially difficult to get through in tandem. I still have no idea what she was trying to accomplish with having this in there, but it was really hard to focus on the points she was making early on. Admittedly, though, by the end of the book I had nearly stopped noticing. I hope to regain my intolerance shortly, however.
No, not that kind of intolerance.
In the first section of the book, she discusses the word itself. She likes the word cunt rather than the vagina, in part because vagina only refers to the inner part rather than the whole lovely organ,** but also because the name comes from the Latin word for sheath. Sure, that’s a little weird to have the “correct” word for vagina be only in relation to the penis. Then, however, she goes on to only refer to the penis throughout the section as “prick”. Wait a second. Doesn’t that sort of have the impression of only being related to the vagina? Not to mention being the most violent of the commonly used terms? I don’t believe that she dislikes all men, but the complete lack of though about men involved is frustrating, disheartening, and makes the whole book harder to read.
In a final criticism, other than just seeming entirely inconsiderate about things she’s demanding for men***, she occasionally takes things to what I consider a radical, unhealthy view that is actually harmful to the cause. It comes up sparingly, but there are the occasional quotes like:
“A gentleman who doesn’t have the physical and/or emotional sensitivity to use condoms couldn’t possibly possess the self-confidence required to fully procure the infinite soundings of pleasure from the depths of a woman’s being, via the endlessness of her cunt.” (emphasis hers)
Obnoxious new-age diction aside, this again just shows utter disregard for the full acceptance of men, when she’s asking for that acceptance of women. Now, in the vast majority of cases, absolutely, men should wear a Goddamned condom, and if it’s casual sex, there’s more or less no way around that. But she’s talking about a long-term solution, as opposed to any other form of birth control. I personally know men who flat out cannot orgasm with a condom on, and have heard of many others who can’t maintain an erection with one on. Saying that it’s all down to sensitivity seems callous or ignorant. And I’m still not sure what that has to do with self-confidence.
Another quote on a very different topic but is still harmful is:
“Now when I hear of a man murdering a woman I assume that he raped her unless I read the fucken (sic) coroner’s report myself.”
What? Why? This quote comes after a harrowing story of a leader of a Seattle band getting raped and murdered, but only the murder made it to the headlines. No, that shouldn’t have happened. Yes, sometimes the media sucks. But really? Every time you hear of a murder, you won’t believe anyone except the coroner that the woman wasn’t raped? That isn’t just depressing, it’s absurd.
After saying all of this, you may think I hated the book. I didn’t, not by a long shot. The overall message of the book is fantastic, and one that I wish more women heard. It might be a bit much for a woman who hasn’t read any feminist literature, but the general “second wave feminism didn’t fix anything, there are still a billion problems, get pissed about it” is fantastic, and she does a good job of convincing the reader of just that. If anyone reading here honestly thinks that feminism has done all it needs to do, this book may well be for you.
Another thing I genuinely appreciate is that she gives practical advice. In multiple places she talks about concrete, practical things women can do for themselves. This includes alternatives to tampons (to save money and to not be giving it to a men-controlled corporation), alternatives to clinical abortions (that are not guaranteed to work but are much less unpleasant and a step you can try before going to a clinic) and advice on masturbation and sex (because how can you write a book about cunts and not cover that stuff?) Further, there is a big chapter on rape, and she covers a lot of important information about self-defense and ways to protect oneself.**** These are important things to learn about and things that aren’t taught in an institutionalized way in our society, and should be. Big chunks of her advice are things I hope every woman hears, if not from this book then from somewhere else.
On the whole I think that this book is almost too mixed to have a generalized opinion on it. I really like some parts, some parts really frustrate me, and some parts I think are actually destructive rather than helpful. I think Cunt is often considered to be a primer of feminist literature and philosophy, and as that I think it does its job admirably. It covers most of the good aspects of feminism and hits on a couple of the lame, man-hating parts, too. Maybe not the ideal book to convert the masses, but it’s a start.
*The largest section of the book (on cunt-as-a-body-part, not on cunt-as-a-word) is called The Anatomical Jewel. I’m as happy as the next guy to get on board with praising women’s anatomy, but something about this term just sounds so unattractive. I never got over it, throughout the whole book.
**A notion I understand and respect, as I often thought it was weird that we did that. Picture referring to your nose, your eyes, your ears, all as your face.
***Though, were she here to defend herself, she might say that a big part of this book is about women supporting women, not men; and that should go both ways; which I agree with to a point. But I still think a basic level of equality in her thinking could have gone a long way in this book.
****Not necessarily taking a martial arts class, but, in her main example, when going to buy smokes late at night, she puts on a big baggy sweatshirt to make herself less look womanly, puts a few rocks in her pockets to be able to throw, and she calls her friend who lives in the apartment above her and says “If I don’t call you back in 10 minutes, come looking for me.” Not necessary for every woman in every neighborhood in every city, but damn good advice for some.
images via goodreads.com, drudgereport.com, humanflowerproject.com
To me her view on men is more or less like, "Im not a racist, I just hate black people". It is very odd yet liberating to hear a woman use cunt in this way because I know out of all of my friends, it's usually the ladies who don't like hearing that word.
ReplyDeleteAnd on a side note, blogspot is telling me cunt isn't a word.
I'm damn glad you're back. I want more. That's all.
ReplyDelete"This includes alternatives to tampons (to save money and to not be giving it to a men-controlled corporation)"
ReplyDeleteThis actually made me laugh out loud. The sentiment isn't just silly, it's stupid. This book is published by a company founded and owned by a guy named Frank Pearl. Is buying this book any different from buying tampons?
Another point: my research (which is to say the wikipedia page about the author) hasn't turned up anything, but I would bet big money that the author is a lesbian. I have a theory that sexual attraction between the sexes is like the oil industry between saudi arabia and the US. It's not the only reason they tolerate each other's existence, but it sure fuckin' helps.
I feel like gays writing books on inter-sex relations and the balance of power are missing a very (and maybe the _most_) important part of the picture, like a tee-totaler writing a book on drinking in moderation. There's this really, really strong upside to dealing with the bullshit of the opposite sex that is completely chemical, and missing out on that really prevents you from seeing the full picture.
Mac, I should have been more specific there, rather than just saying "men-controlled corporation" and leaving it at that. More specifically, her reasoning is that it's buying a product that men made and men get paid for when it's a product that they'll never use or need or benefit from, and can't know what it feels like, etc. She doesn't just dislike all corporations run by men. A related point is that if women had been in positions like the creators of the tampon, there would be much cheaper, better to solutions to the cleanup of menstruation a long time ago (a point I've heard echoed in a number of areas by a number of women).
ReplyDeleteAs to the second point, she's bisexual. I understand what you're saying, though, to a point. If, for example, you've had generally pretty crappy men in your life and were never sexually attracted to men, it may be a little harder to understand why anyone would want to hang out with them. However, I might suggest that you try to work on saying things like "Oh, she has problems with men? She must be gay." or referring to gay people as "gays". It's like how you don't say "blacks".