AJC.com > Opinion > Woman to Woman > Archives > 2007 > June
June 2007
Harm in reading romance novels?
Shaunti Feldhahn, a right-leaning columnist, writes the commentary this week and Diane Glass, a left-leaning columnist, responds.
Rebuttal
There’s a war going on, children go to bed hungry and women are being raped at alarming rates in South Africa. Harlequin novels may not be like reading Maya Angelou, but at least women are reading.
If we’re getting out the protest signs about insipid romance novels, why not rid the shelves of silly self-help books, too. They, too, give women unrealistic and dangerous notions.
Like, say, the notions of the sick woman I saw on the Oprah Show who had breast cancer. She believed the positive thinking mantra message in the actress-edited best seller, “The Secret,” was a more viable method of fighting cancer than chemo. Even Oprah thought she was whack.
Romance novels are about entertainment, not the dissemination of seriously dangerous notions. I don’t think Harlequin readers believe they’re doing in-depth gender research or that Fabio is going to ride up on his white horse. I think they’re indulging in a little female pornography.
But I’d argue that all porn isn’t equal. Comparing romance novels laced with story lines and plots to visuals of girls bent over motorcycles is unfair.
Erotica has been shown to have no adverse social implications, according to an in-depth study of pornography and erotica, in “Pornography: Research Advances and Policy Considerations.” Violent and dehumanizing pornography did, however, show anti-social implications. And Internet pornography users show weak social ties, the March 2004 “Social Science Quarterly” reported.
The evidence is in: Pornography is objectifying. The only knowledge someone wants about a model in a porn shot is carnal. And, no, Playboy centerfold questionnaires about a gal’s favorite hobby, isn’t character development. That’s marketing, and an excuse for those guys who say they only read Playboy for the articles.
The difference between erotica and porn isn’t the lighting, it’s the content.
Should development trump the rights of tortoises?
Diane Glass, a left-leaning columnist, writes the commentary this week and Shaunti Feldhahn, a right-leaning columnist, responds.
Commentary
Florida gopher turtles will be buried alive to accommodate a Palm Beach Super Wal-Mart. The ultimate American source for cheap consumer goods had to pay only a little more than $10,000 for the state’s permission to carry out its senseless torture. The number of gopher turtles has dwindled as quickly as the overpriced condos have risen. They call that progress.
The good news is that Florida decided this needless 16-year torture has gone on too long and has passed a law requiring all developers to relocate or accommodate the turtles rather than burying them under their rubble, beginning in July of this year.
This has developers running for permits before the deadline becomes effective, and their greedy desires are delayed by more thoughtful consideration that a backhoe can’t provide. While deep thought hasn’t often been attributable to developers, I’d like to try to convince them otherwise.
This issue isn’t about whether animals have souls. That is a question we can’t even prove about ourselves. This issue isn’t about whether animals are capable of moral reason because we don’t really know this either. Evidence mounts every day that proves how very little we do know about what the rest of the animal world does and doesn’t know.
This issue is about respecting the life of other living and breathing animals who share this Earth. It is about respecting and recognizing that all animals, even insects and reptiles, have their place in the ecosystem, and the depletion of one species increases another, threatens another and results in a shift in the environment, which is so intricately designed. A lack of thought about our actions can have adverse effects for centuries. We can’t just plow mindlessly through Terra Mater and expect to come out unscathed just because we’re bigger and stronger.
Lately, even conservatives recognize the damage we’re doing to the environment and how mindful living, although not convenient in the short-term, can increase our likelihood of survival in the long haul.
We should recognize the intricacy of our environment and the place of every living creature if we value our own survival.
Rebuttal
This issue has nothing to do with how evil you think Wal-Mart is, although, hey, who doesn’t like to blame them for all the ills of the world? Environmentalists are notorious for skating around the economic realities, and this case is no exception.
This issue is not about heartless developers but crazy regulatory policies. Diane failed to mention that it costs anywhere from $100 to $4,000 per tortoise for “official” removal. Also, before landowners in Florida could move any tortoises, they had to pay for a turtle blood test and then wait 30 to 60 days for the results, to ensure that the tortoise was infection-free.
When one adds up the crazy amount of time, money and hoops a landowner had to jump through, choosing the old permit option wasn’t heartless: It was the only way to get things done.
As a conservative who is concerned for the environment, I agree that gopher tortoises should be moved rather than plowed under. And I agree that we ignore the “circle of life” at our own peril. But we also ignore economic realities at our peril. Like so many well-intentioned environmental proposals, the new Florida directive simply doesn’t account for its economic burden — or its perverse disincentives.
According to a Heritage Foundation paper on this problem, eight out of 10 endangered or threatened species have habitats on private lands. So it’s a terrible idea to make landowners resent the cost of reporting and protecting them — such as the risk of actually losing their property.
As Carol Saviak, executive director of the Coalition of Property Rights in Orlando explained in an interview, she’s now worried that: “Landowners will be discouraged to report or remove the gopher tortoises, and they just won’t be ‘found’ on the property.”
Florida has 1.3 million acres of public land, and $57 million collected from landowners for preserving non-endangered species like the gopher tortoise. Why shouldn’t it simply use some of that budget for relocation or, better yet, open some of that land to the species and accept gopher tortoises from landowners at no charge? We can still do the right thing — but without stymieing the economic engine that makes the state a good habitat for homo sapiens as well.
Should it matter to women that there is only one woman left on the Supreme Court?
Shaunti Feldhahn, a right-leaning columnist, writes the commentary this week and Diane Glass, a left-leaning columnist, responds.
Commentary
Yes, it matters that there is only one woman on the court, but not in the way Diane will argue. I think Ruth Bader Ginsburg risks creating a problem for women by consistently reinforcing a female stereotype that she lets her personal opinions get in the way of doing her job objectively.
Justice Ginsburg’s most recent dissents typify the strong personal feminist beliefs that led her to start the ACLU’s “Women’s Rights Project” in 1972. In her eyes, for example, when the high court recently upheld the ban on partial-birth abortion, it stole reproductive freedom from women. Never mind a May 2007 Gallup Poll that shows 72 percent of Americans agree with the ban. She characterized the ruling as “alarming” and “irrational.”
But why are we even talking about popular opinion? This is the Supreme Court, not Congress; it is supposed to interpret the law, not make it. And that’s exactly why a justice’s gender shouldn’t matter. A female justice should be able to uphold the purpose of the court just like anyone else. Yet Ginsburg is filling the role of Women’s Rights Advocate (a liberal idea of women’s rights, that is), instead of Supreme Court justice.
Ginsburg charged up one woman’s recent work discrimination case proceedings by saying: “This court does not comprehend or is indifferent to, the insidious way in which women can be victims of pay discrimination.” But she completely ignored the fact that the woman had filed her lawsuit after she was legally allowed to do so.
Jay Sekulow, chief counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice, shared by phone that Justice Ginsburg is “painting this as a huge rollback on civil rights, but in reality, it was simply a statutory case.”
If there is an insidious problem with pay discrimination, and women should be able to file lawsuits years after the fact, let’s encourage Congress to reform the law. That’s their job.
As a professional woman, it makes me uncomfortable to see such a high-profile woman so publicly giving into an unprofessional temptation. I do wish there was more than one female Supreme Court justice at the moment — but only because I’m eager to get a better female role model.
Rebuttal
If the Supreme Court is supposed to reflect the interests of all Americans, it does a very poor job. Looking at minority representation, the numbers disproportionately favor white males. Of the nine justices, one is African-American and one is female. The rest are white men.
African-Americans make up 13 percent of the population, which makes Clarence Thomas’ appointment equitable. On race alone, he represents 11 percent of the Supreme Court. But when we talk about sex, the inequities are glaring. Men make up 50 percent of the population but 89 percent of the court; women make up the other half of the population but a measly 11 percent of the court.
Contrary to white male opinion, men are not the bearers of universal truth who share the interests and opinions of both sexes. They represent their own interests, which are socially embedded in their gender, their religious beliefs and their upbringing.
People have opinions, and their opinions shape how they interpret the law. Shaunti may believe Supreme Court representatives are automatons who blindly pass legislation based on former case law. But if conservatives really held this view, massive energy wouldn’t be expended over conservative vs. liberal appointments with every presidential term.
As it stands, Catholic men now make up 55 percent of the Supreme Court, even though Catholics of all genders make up only around 25 percent of the American population. Judge Scalia, alone, has sired nine children in his quest to populate the world. He must have missed the memo about women’s access to birth control. His anti-choice stand on abortion could be better managed by him adopting, but I guess he’d rather legislate his belief.
The same goes for Shaunti, who thinks that being a feminist is equivalent to having green skin and owning a fleet of flying monkeys. But women — even feminist ones — have a right to interpret the law. It would be a far better solution to appoint politically divergent women in half of all Supreme Court appointments instead of burning one at the cross.
Can a presidential candidate disagree with the party line?
Diane Glass, a left-leaning columnist, writes the commentary this week and Shaunti Feldhahn, a right-leaning columnist, responds.
Commentary
The hunger for controversy is a greater public need than a candidate’s honesty. An eternally disgruntled public and a swarm of nitpicky journalists demand party conformity. But the 2008 presidential lineup isn’t your predictable fare of hard-core party loyalists.
You’d think this was a good thing. It’s an example of how politicians honestly represent their views, not how they give lip service to party platforms. It’s a sign of growth that we can acknowledge the complexity inherent in hot-button issues. Yes, you’d think it would be a sign of progress. But when we collectively bemoan partisan politics that limit us in a civil war of inaction, we do this out of one side of our mouth.
Is there still room for a political center?
Running for a party’s nomination has become a protracted, procrustean process for candidates. By the time they get the nomination it’s a monumental task to appeal to everyone at election time, and voting becomes a rote, meaningless process.
Look at the heated debate over Giuliani’s abortion stand. He’s against it but isn’t seeking to overturn Roe v. Wade. His honesty is seen as a weakness. But if Giuliani was weak, he would be comfortable passing legislation based on his religious beliefs rather than stepping back and deciding that his beliefs have no place in secular law.
Sen. Clinton has been hounded for an apology for supporting President Bush’s Iraq invasion. The call is so strong for her public apology that she doesn’t even get any credit for not waffling.
We should publicly flog the politicians who lie about the beliefs that they bark about like good little dogs. How about all of the potential Republican candidates like John McCain, Rudy Guiliani and Newt Gingrich who take a “stand” on family values but fall back to earth after their adulterous affairs and subsequent divorces.
We’ve become so partisan in our expectations of candidates that we’ve lost sight of what matters — a candidate’s character and ability to lead the nation.
Rebuttal
Am I the only one wondering about ulterior motives when Diane embraces a “liberal conservative”? Would she consider it “progress” if a popular, staunchly pro-life Democrat ran for president?
Candidates are entitled to their opinions. But, sorry, Diane — the party line does matter. I don’t agree with everything in the Republican platform, either. But I’m not vying to represent it to the world. If a candidate hopes to be the one representing a particular ideological framework, surely he shouldn’t hide or sugarcoat it when he completely disagrees with it. It’s simple truth in advertising to tell voters what they’d be getting. We require full disclosure of the contents and side effects of foodstuffs, video games and medicines. Should we require less for a person vying to lead our country?
I can remember moving to New York City in the 1990s and admiring Giuliani’s crackdown on crime and budget excess. And then I turned on my television a year or two later and was shocked to see him marching in a gay pride parade. Until that moment, even though he was my mayor, I had no idea that he shared, supported and instituted as policy the liberal side of most social beliefs. And that is the risk with him running as a conservative. Unless the average conservative voter watches enough CNN to have heard his bold “I’m pro-choice, I’m pro-gay rights” proclamation back in 1999, most wouldn’t realize just how likely he is to institute anti-conservative social policies.
Since many people think first of social issues when they hear “liberal” or “conservative,” wouldn’t it seem more accurate for Giuliani to run as a Democrat who is fiscally conservative?
No candidate, nor their party, is perfect. But one of the most important ideas within conservative thought is that there are objective moral standards rooted in natural law, and that society should try its best to uphold them even though we imperfect people are certain to fail at times. I do believe that there are certain character questions that cast doubt on a politician’s fitness for office, and one of those would be a candidate hiding who he really is.
Services »
Commentary
By Shaunti Feldhahn
I enjoy an escapist beach read like anyone else. I’ve got no literary pretensions. That said, however, I was concerned to learn that many romance novels are not as harmless as they look. In fact, some marriage therapists caution that women can become as dangerously unbalanced by these books’ entrancing but distorted messages as men can by distorted messages of pornography.
In fact, many of today’s romance novels actually have a huge soft porn influence, as nearly all major publishers are rushing to put out mainstream “erotica” titles to meet exploding demand. At what point should we admit that there is little difference between graphic images to men and seductive, graphic words and feelings to women? Erotica romances provide the porn-laced story with no worry about a spouse catching you online.
Erotica aside, even traditional romance novels promote - almost by definition - an unattainable romantic ideal. The male heroes are all strong, rugged and breathtakingly handsome, yet sensitive, patient listeners and utterly unselfish. Is it any wonder that if we read two or three of those romances in a row, we’d start to be irritated by our real-life husbands with all their wonderful yet exasperating idiosyncrasies?
Dr. Julianna Slattery, psychologist and author of the excellent book Finding the Hero in Your Husband, explained in an interview that “For many women, these novels really do promote dissatisfaction with their relationships. There is a neurochemical element with men and porn, but an emotional element with women and these novels. I have met women that are addicted to these novels.”
If you think this is an insignificant trend, think again. The Romance Writers of America website says 64 million people (mostly women) read at least one romance novel last year, accounting for 55% of all the popular mass-market fiction sold.
Although I wish “erotica” would disappear, I’m not suggesting women ditch other books that also happen to be romance stories. But this summer, those of us who like a good beach read would do well to remember, as we fold up our towel and head home, that it’s our choice to find the hero in our husband and not in the pages of a fiction book.