All posts by Laura Nathan-Garner

 

Gays: the “real” weapons of mass destruction

We’ve all heard the claim that gays are destroying the so-called moral fabric of America — not to mention that “sacred institution between a man and a woman” — with their calls to wed. And, of course, we’ve all heard that gays are to blame for the HIV/AIDS epidemic. But here’s one I bet hasn’t even crossed your mind:  Gays are to blame for the deaths of hundreds of U.S. troops in Iraq.

Or so says Rev. Fred Phelps, the founder of Kansas’ Westboro Baptist Church. The church, which isn’t associated with any denomination, claims that God is wreaking havoc on American soldiers in Iraq out of vengeance for “a country that harbors gays.”

Not only does this claim essentially equate gays with terrorists by buying into the war on terrorism’s rhetoric of certain Arab states’ “harboring” of terrorists, it also calls into question the validity of the claim that the U.S. “harbors” gays. That is, while plenty of gays and other sexual minorities reside in the United States, does the U.S. really provide sexual minorities refuge in the truest sense of the word? Sure, sodomy is now legal. But on November 2, an awful lot of Americans went to the polls because they didn’t want gays to be able to — gasp — marry. And that’s just one civil liberty amongst dozens (hundreds?) that gays lack in the United States.

It’s worth noting that Phelps’ following is fairly small and self-contained. In fact, almost all of the members of his church are his relatives. But, still, I can’t help but wonder what on earth is going on in their heads. This isn’t even a question of why troops are dying in Iraq. It’s a question of whether middle America — or in this case, a Kansas church — will ever recognize that you can’t keep blaming everything on gays, especially when you’re part of what keeps gays from gaining the political power necessary to “threaten” that of the Religious Right.

Perhaps even worse, though, is that as insulated as Phelps’ group might be, their message isn’t contained. Phelps’ followers have been out in droves across the country at funerals for U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq, holding up signs saying things like “God hates fags” and “God hates you.” Believe what you will, I suppose, but there’s a time and place for everything (though, I’ve got to wonder why Phelps’ church doesn’t seem to have the time to embrace love and compassion). And that’s probably why Phelps’ followers haven’t been winning over too many supporters with this strategy of harrassing the families of the fallen.

 

Fireworks, freedom, and … outsiders

issue banner

As people across the United States commemorate the Fourth of July with beach trips, fireworks, and barbeques, there is a semblance of unity among people of all backgrounds in this country. We all have a reason to celebrate — not just the United States’ independence, but also a much-needed extended weekend.

Published in the midst of this temporary concord, this issue of InTheFray highlights those who don’t quite fit in, those who are — both literally and figuratively — strangers to the space they occupy and the air they breathe. In Ayesha and me, we see what happens when ITF Contributing Editor Anju Mary Paul attempts to understand the experiences of a young Muslim immigrant. What she discovers about being “American” and being Muslim isn’t what you — or our immigrant-reporter — might expect. The same could be said for ITF columnist Russ Cobb. During a road trip from Texas to California, he confronts the Red State/Blue State divide head-on, only to discover that the 2004 election results don’t tell the full story of American politics.

Across the pond, meanwhile, American transplant Karen Ling discovers a way to compensate for her feelings of inadequacy in Paris — helping American tourists who have an even tougher time fitting in. And in Tofu and toast, Rhian Kohashi O’Rourke explores, through her eyes, what it means to be an outsider for her aging grandfather who has become a foreigner to his own life.

For those who still feel like they belong, Dave A. Zimmerman challenges you to think again. In Everything silly is serious again, he explores how Batman Begins gives us a taste of a comic book character quite different from the one we grew up with. Silly or serious, though, the newest Batman, Zimmerman contends, plants the seeds of truth about our own lives.

Happy reading!

Laura Nathan
Editor
Brooklyn, New York

 

When the colors refuse to run

issue banner

June always brings many reasons for celebrations. Summer vacation. Weddings galore. The advent of summer — and the barbeques and sandal-wearing this implies.

But only in the past three decades have we found another reason to celebrate: Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transsexual, and Queer (LGBTQ) Pride month.

As we celebrate LGBTQ Pride Month in this special issue of InTheFray, we share a breadth of perspectives and stories reflecting the accomplishments and struggles of sexual minorities across the United States. We begin at Michigan State University, where Lindsey K. Anderson details how this once-anti-gay campus, in spite of lingering homophobia, enabled her to come to terms with her sexuality, in The perfect couple. Meanwhile, in neighboring Chicago, Queer Latino youth dance the night away in a prom all their own. Watch for Emily Alpert‘s observations of the night, coming on June 13.

Speaking of perfect couples, ITF columnist Keely Savoie shares her recipe for an unusually subversive marriage in Finding defiance in a sparkly rock. Later this month, guest columnist S. Wright offers up her own subversive perspective, when she suggests that the battle for gay marriage may only hurt queers — particularly those of color — in the long-run.

Describing a different sort of love, Sam J. Miller recalls his infatuation with the guys in a lefty punk-rock band and the reality check — er, homophobia — he grappled with when he got a closer look at Kevin’s basement. Rebecca Beyer, meanwhile, revisits the stereotypes she faced as a female soccer player and the role that these stereotypes played in keeping her in the closet for an additional four years.

From the East Coast we journey with photographer Jeffrey W. Thompson to the home of the Huddlestonsmith family in Columbia, Missouri. There a young girl named Katie basks in being her Daddies’ little girl while struggling with the discrimination and battles of being raised by two men in the Midwest. And in Chad Gurley’s short story, The stoning of Andrew, one sixth grader must bear the double-burden of enduring the “birds and bees talk” and confronting his own sexual differences on the playground. Back in the classroom, Brian Michael Weaver will reveal later this month just how difficult it can be for a primary school teacher to use language sensitive to children with LGBTQ parents — even when that teacher is a single, gay dad himself.

And thousands of miles from an American classroom, Penny Newbury returns to Fuerte Olimpo, Paraguay — a place she discovers she still doesn’t really know or understand, even after living there for three years in Ña Manu.

But neither the celebrations nor the stories end there. As part of our LGBTQ celebration this month, InTheFray is showcasing photographs of LGBT celebrations and events happening around the United States and the world. Readers can submit original photographs to our Media Gallery, where they will be posted daily. InTheFray asks that you provide a brief caption to be published with the photograph, telling us the who, what, when, and where of your photo(s). Please also include your first name and location.

(One final note: If you haven’t done so already, please complete our 2005 Reader Survey. Your anonymous answers will help us to improve the magazine.)

Thank you for sharing your stories — and reading ours!

Laura Nathan
Editor
Brooklyn, New York

 

Outside looking in, inside looking out

issue banner

Belonging. It’s one of the most basic human needs, and the price of its absence — exclusion — is both the source of some of our greatest conflicts and, paradoxically, a motivator of change and innovation.

Sure, some of us may be chameleon-like, blending in so as to not stand out. But most of us, no matter what our nationality, struggle to fit in ways both big and small thanks to our beliefs, our gender, our sexual preferences, the color of our skin, age, our accents, physical and mental dispositions, financial circumstances, and family structures, to name just some of our distinguishing characteristics.

In this issue of InTheFray Magazine, we examine what it means to belong — and what it means to be an outsider. To elucidate the global dimensions of this phenomenon, photographer Chika Watanabe shares her photos from some of the world’s most vibrant and prosperous cities — New York, Madrid, and Tokyo — in Envisioning belonging.

Far from these metropolises, Raque Kunz relays how a move to rural Rincon, Cape Verde, demands reconsideration of the importance of family and friends and a new approach to dating in A hard bargain. Meanwhile, in rural Shandong, China, InTheFray Assistant Editor Michelle Chen illuminates how one Chinese teenager’s failure to belong to either the city or the village complicates her struggle to make her way in the world in Homecoming for Hai Rong.

Bringing us back to the skies, streets, and bookshelves of the United States, David A. Zimmerman, in Walk this way, tackles the question of how female comic book characters are faring in what is often thought of as a Superman’s world — and how today’s superheroines are improving humanity, one comic book at a time.

Rounding out this month’s stories is the winning essay from InTheFray’s first annual writing contest. Showing readers how he goes about Respecting life, Bambi-style in a small Minnesota town where killing is the norm, Thomas Lee Boles emphasizes the value of animal — not just human — life. Thanks to everyone who entered the contest this year — we received some great entries and look forward to receiving more next year.

Thanks for reading — and remember all of these dreary April showers are sure to bring May flowers!

Laura Nathan, InTheFray Editor
Brooklyn, New York

 

Walking in another’s shoes

issue banner

Between work, family, friends, and significant others, most of us are forced to relate to people with whom we don’t see eye-to-eye on a daily basis. But as daily media coverage of distant places like Iraq suggests, the struggle to relate to others is also a global one, as we deal with differences both unfamiliar and surprisingly similar.

In this month’s issue of InTheFray, we examine some of these struggles to see eye-to-eye with people who can often seem to be a world apart — even when they’re just a few inches away. At home in the United States, Stacy Torian takes a look at the difficulties faced by working class academics, who can lack the resources and pedigrees of their more privileged peers, in “Breaking through the class ceiling.” Former prescription drug addict Alexis Luna, meanwhile, exposes her own struggle to get over “The joy of six milligrams” and to have healthier relationships with people — including herself.

On the subject of illness, Chip Chipman illuminates how the spirit of the legendary uniter and healer, Mother Theresa, lives on after her death. Through his vivid photographs, Chipman reveals Mother Theresa’s impact on San Francisco masseuse Mary Ann Finch, who runs a massage institute for the homeless, in “Touching the untouchables.”

Halfway around the world, two ITF contributors share their struggles to relate to others in the Middle East and Africa. Writing in a time of war, Andrew Blackwell shares the skepticism he felt while producing pro-Western video clips during Afghanistan’s first election in“Democracy, Middle East-style.”

Providing insight on the role everyday practices play in reminding us of what it means to be alive, ITF Contributing Artist Josh Arseneau shares his photographs from the Gambia.

Rounding out this month’s stories is ITF Assistant Managing Editor and Columnist Russell Cobb’s “Go ahead, make my next four years,” an insightful look at the Religious Right’s inability to transform Hollywood’s liberal ways — despite harsh criticism of Clint Eastwood’s Oscar-winning film “Million Dollar Baby.”

Coming later this month: stories celebrating women’s history. And in April, check back for an issue concerning belonging — something we all know about, for better or worse.

Laura Nathan, InTheFray Editor
Brooklyn, New York

 

The disparities disaster didn’t erase

The outpouring of financial support for the victims of the tsunami that befell Southeast Asia on December 26 often seems very inspiring. In a world full of differences and economic disparities, people are coming together to donate to one cause.

But the goodwill is hardly universal, particularly among those who are experiencing the disaster firsthand.

In India, where the caste system persists, lower caste survivors are being forced out of relief camps and are being denied aid supplies.

Why? Well, higher caste survivors think that their economic superiority gives them a greater right to have access to those camps and supplies, so they’re moving in and forcing the so-called untouchables out.

Would this kind of class politics happen elsewhere were other countries to be struck by a horrific natural disaster? Perhaps. Almost certainly.

What’s scary about that realization is not simply the fact that it puts a serious damper on a rare unified mood of goodwill in the world. It also begs the question of who is receiving the aid in regions where economic hierarchies reign. Is the aid going primarily to those who wield the most privilege?

Sadly, the predicament in India also brings to light a horrid side of human nature. The side where no disaster, no degree of loss can ever erase the lines between the haves and have-nots and the exclusion, loss, and devastation those lines produce.

—Laura Nathan

 

Ringing in the New—while Remembering the Old (Best of In The Fray 2004)

issue banner

With a new year upon us, it can be all too easy to rush into bettering ourselves—without reflecting on past accomplishments. But here at In The Fray, we know we’d be nothing without our past—as well as thousands of new readers and dozens of new contributors.

As we close the book on another year and the twelve issues it brought us, we commemorate the Best of In The Fray 2004 by republishing the stories that our readers and editors thought best reflected the excellence ITF strives for. From Rachel Rinaldo’s investigation of how a wounded Rwanda is rebuilding itself ten years after its harrowing genocide, to Benoit Denizet-Lewis’ fictional conversation between then-presidential candidate John Kerry and former vice president Al Gore, the winning pieces represent some of ITF’s best offerings to date. On Monday, January 17, we’ll also publish one new story, Occupation’s Death Grip, Jason Boog’s exploration of the once-powerful Russian military’s downward spiral.

And in a world constantly changing—for better and worse, we here at ITF are also making resolutions for improvement. Through interactive surveys and a host of strategies designed to connect you with others who are also concerned with issues of identity and community, we plan to engage readers more frequently.

Adding new perspectives to the ways we envision the world and debate issues concerning identity and community, two familiar voices, Scott Winship and Russell Cobb, will begin penning regular columns in the months ahead.

And when ITF launches its first annual college writing contest later this month, lesser known, but equally important, voices—maybe even yours!—will also help us see the world through different I’s. We’ll ask prospective contestants to write about their subversion of a gender, race, consumer, or other kind of social norm in a public, family, or campus space. The writer of the best essay will be awarded a $200 prize. (Click here to learn how to participate.)

In addition, next month, on the heels of the holiday season’s ritual bingeing and purging—and an international debate over providing sufficient disaster relief to Southeast Asia—we’ll publish our Excess issue, the first of several theme-oriented issues.

By the end of this year, In The Fray hopes to publish the first print edition of the magazine. So far, we have raised $1,163 of the $12,000 we need. Please consider making a tax-deductible donation to our nonprofit, all-volunteer organization—we’ve added new ways that you can help. As you know, In The Fray is a completely volunteer effort, and we depend on the ongoing support of readers like you.

Happy New Year—and thanks for helping ITF ring in another year!

Laura Nathan
Editor
Brooklyn, New York

The Best of  In The Fray 2004

Outsourcing Marriage, by Radhika Sharma
Best of IDENTIFY. Expat suitors are returning to India to sweep brides off their feet and their continent.
Published April 5, 2004

Genocide’s Deadly Residue, by Rachel Rinaldo
Best of IDENTIFY (runner-up). The international community looked the other way while more than 800,000 people were murdered in Rwanda 10 years ago. Now, justice remains elusive and the harsh aftermath of orphans and HIV, psychological scars and physical scarcity threaten to prolong the killing.
Published September 6, 2004

GAY LIT, by Richard Martin
Best of IMAGINE. If you think being a closeted queer is suffocating, just imagine what it’s like to be an imprisoned gay man.
Published July 12, 2004

The Specter, by Hildie S. Block
Best of INTERACT. She could never really appreciate her father’s 30-year struggle with multiple sclerosis. Until her own fingertips went numb.
Published September 6, 2004

Sex, Lies, and Adult Videos: An Interview with Christi Lake, by Laura Nathan
Best of INTERACT (runner-up). Being a female sex symbol isn’t easy, but Christi Lake likes to do it. A conversation with the adult film star about reclaiming sex—on and off the camera.
Published December 6, 2004

Portrait of a Child Soldier: An Interview with Josh Arseneau, by Kenji Mizumori
Best of IMAGE (tie). An interview with artist Josh Arseneau, who painted portraits of Liberian youth for his Pacific Northwest College of Art senior thesis, one of which was exhibited at In The Fray’s recent benefit in Manhattan.
Published August 27, 2004

Marriage Month, by Adam Lovingood
Best of IMAGE (tie). Most people are aware that San Francisco allowed same-sex marriages for a month earlier this year, but few know the poignant tales behind the unions.
Published May 17, 2004

Life after Torture, by John Kaplan
Best of IMAGE (runner-up). Hoping to kill off the ghosts of Abu Ghraib, President Bush wants to tear down the now infamous Iraqi prison. But getting rid of Abu Ghraib won’t ameliorate the trauma—at least not for the tortured, who struggle with their pasts on into the present.
Published June 7, 2004

Strangers in a Strange Land, by Laura Nathan
Best of OFF THE SHELF. Just as Texans are told to remember the Alamo, Jews are told to remember the Holocaust. But as David Bezmozgis suggests in Natasha and Other Stories, maybe it’s time for Jews to remember that they’ve also wandered through the desert and trekked across international waters.
Published July 12, 2004

A Wild Life, by Alexandra Copley
Best of THROUGH THE LOOKING GLASS. Leading simple but hard lives, Brazil’s cowboys are responsible for producing much of the beef that fills North American supermarkets.
Published September 20, 2004

Searching for Belonging, by Afi-Odelia E. Scruggs
Best of the Columns (tie). Shopping for palm oil, cardamom coffee, and identity.
Published February 2, 2004

Looking for a Silver Lining, by Henry P. Belanger
Best of the Columns (tie). With a big gray cumulonimbus looming above following the 2004 election, consoling ourselves over the results is hardly easy. But Red Sox Fans, who know what it means to endure years of pain, have some wise ideas for coping with this strange new world.
Published November 9, 2004

A 20/20 Vision, by Bob Keeler
Best of the Guest Columns (tie). All I can do to cope with the fear of another Bush victory is entertain the political fantasies dancing in my head.
Published October 18, 2004

The John and Al tapes, by Benoit Denizet-Lewis
Best of the Guest Columns (tie). If only John Kerry and Al Gore would speak candidly in public … But since they don’t, here’s a fictional late-night conversation.

Google Jew, by Tak Toyoshima
Best of Secret Asian Man.
Published September 6, 2004

Operation Heterosexual Freedom, by Mikhaela B. Reid
Best of The Boiling Point.
Published August 16, 2004″

 

Louisa Achille on The Naked Feminist

A conversation with Louisa Achille, the director of The Naked Feminist.

What inspired you to make The Naked Feminist?

I became inspired to make The Naked Feminist after reading a magazine article on the famous porn star, Nina Hartley, declaring her feminist sensibilities and strengths as a sex entertainer and educator — a career spanning over 17 years. I wanted to know if Nina was a rare exception in this male dominated industry.

Feminism‚ is a somewhat contentious term that different people define in different ways. From your film, I get the sense that you define it in terms of being empowered and in control of oneself. Would you say that’s a pretty accurate characterization of your definition?

I think feminism for many women means different things, but for me it is essentially about choice and giving women a voice. I think once a woman has her voice and can make choices for herself, then empowerment, self-identity, and courage will follow.

Why did you choose the particular actresses you used in your film? They seem like a fairly close-knit group, which I found very interesting. It made the pornography film  industry seem much smaller than I imagined.

It was important for me to interview women who had a number of years experience in the industry so I could gauge the progress (or lack of progress) women had made in the adult entertainment industry.

Once I met Jane Hamilton and read about CLUB 90, I became completely inspired by this group of renegade female sex performers. They had created the first porn star support group for women. They have not only created a strong sisterhood amongst themselves, but [they] also have become incredible mentors and role models to other women in the industry. I consider these women to be the first feminists in the industry, and of course their voices are a crucial element in a film depicting feminist sensibilities within the world of adult entertainment. [Like Jane Hamilton,] Nina Hartley, Sharon Mitchell and Christi Lake … [have] all made incredible strides within the industry – Nina as a sex radical, performer, educator and mentor, Sharon co-founding the first medical clinic devoted to the health and emotional needs of people in the industry, and Christi through her political activism and entrepreneurial insight.

All industries are much smaller and [more] tightly knit than they seem, and this is fairly evident once you start working within mainstream Hollywood and similarly with the adult entertainment industry — especially within the same country. However, I think it is even more so with the adult entertainment industry as the people within that industry have been under attack from legislators, the government, and the public far more than any other industry and thus have banded together to fight for freedom of speech and other essential rights such as freedom of expression.
  
The adult entertainment industry is also an industry where the performers, especially the women, are breaking one of the biggest taboo a woman can break — that is having sex on camera for money … Since only a small percentage of women enter into this occupation, they are going to get to know each other and some will form bonds.

There is a peculiar absence of men in your film — aside from Seymour Butts — even though men are an integral component of the porn industry as both producers and consumers. The absence of men in The Naked Feminist seems to be a smart stylistic move to depict women as the agents of the porn industry and their stories. Did you consider interviewing other men besides Seymour, and if so, why are they not included in the edited version of the film? If not, why? And what is so special about Seymour that caused him to make the cut?

I interviewed a number of men — journalists, directors, writers, and performers in the adult entertainment industry, and they were included in every cut except for my final cut … I made this film to give women in the industry a voice, and I didn’t want to lose sight of that. Thus, if a woman spoke about a similar experience or point of view as a man [I interviewed], I chose to keep in the woman’s voice. This film is about [the women in the pornography industry] and their experiences, not the men’s. Even though I do consider [the men’s] viewpoints and experiences to also be incredibly valid, they essentially didn’t belong in this film.

Seymour Butts has one big specialty in my opinion. No, only joking. The reason I was so interested in keeping Seymour in the film was because of his huge female fan base. Even though his main target audience is men, he has all these women that love him and his porn films. When you go to the big adult entertainment conventions it is always astounding to see the number of women — of all ages and nationalities — waiting to get autographs from him. It was nice to illustrate this role reversal and disprove the right wing feminist mantra that no women like pornography.

I noticed that The Naked Feminist doesn’t explicitly address homosexuality and lesbian erotica. However, from what I have read, queer porn is particularly important for women and men who are questioning their sexuality or who are insecure about being involved with members of the same sex. Do you think there is any particular reason why your film ended up having a heterosexual slant?

I don’t think The Naked Feminist explicitly addresses heterosexual erotica either, but you are right, that it is the main genre of pornography that is delved into. That is mainly because heterosexual pornography is the most popular and most historic type of pornography out there. But this was not at all intentional. I did not look at sexual orientation when I made this film.  I was more interested in the female sexual pioneers and entrepreneurs who had made an impact on the industry and made working conditions for women better or who were making strides in today’s mainstream porn world. There are so many sub-genres in pornography and I am sure that many women and men are empowered by the different types. However, that discussion is, I believe, for another film. However, I would like to add that many of the women interviewed are gay, bisexual, polysexual and heterosexual. A wonderful mix really.

Your documentary argues that some pornography is in fact misogynistic and that such films are not the type of porn that the women you interviewed condone. How can one differentiate between misogynistic and non-misogynistic porn? The presence of violence? Consent (or the lack thereof)? Women both in front of and behind the camera? Or just the gut reaction of women involved in the film?

Subjectivity, taste, and consent will always creep into discussions regarding pornography and especially pornography and misogyny. I don’t think there is one exact definition of misogynist porn, and I don’t think there is a sub-genre [that] supports it. However, when I was making this film, I did encounter a disturbing trend in the industry to push the boundaries of sexual violence towards women as far as possible. I think this is mainly a knee-jerk shock tactic to gain notoriety in the business, and it might possibly exist as a backlash against the positive strides that women have made in the industry.  I don’t believe that the companies making this stuff represent the industry as a whole. However, the fact that this type of material (e.g. women being beaten to a pulp whilst being gang raped, made to vomit whilst giving oral [sex] and [being] punched around the head) is being produced saddens me, and in my opinion, it is misogynist as it is illustrating a hatred towards women.

Do you sense some urgency to disrupt the taboo associated with pornography in general, or is your goal merely to enable the women you interviewed to speak their stories and perspectives? What is it that you seek to contribute to the ongoing dialogue regarding sex and sexuality in Western culture (if anything)?

I made The Naked Feminist to give the women in pornography a voice. To me, the film is less about breaking down the taboo associated with pornography and more about breaking down the taboo associated with women who chose to be sexual educators and entertainers. When a man chooses to work in pornography, he is rarely viewed as being exploited or objectified. In reality the money shot and the penis are the most objectified aspects of the genre.  I really think it is time to get rid of this antiquated double standard.

What, if anything, do you hope to contribute to the independent film industry with The Naked Feminist? Is there anything you hope other filmmakers (adult entertainment or otherwise) will take from seeing your film?  Is there anything you hope viewers will take from seeing it?

I would like to contribute tolerance and acceptance to the [feminist] movement. It would be nice if some of the dominant women’s groups would accept these women’s choices, help them to change the system, and make it safer for women instead of denying them their voice and validity.

Christi Lake flirts with a fan-turned-actor on the set.

Sex, Lies, and Adult Videos: A Conversation with Adult Entertainer Christi Lake

Best of In The Fray 2004. Being a female sex symbol isn’t easy, but Christi Lake likes to do it. A conversation with the adult film star about reclaiming sex—on and off the camera.

Christi Lake sitting with a fan-turned-actor
Christi Lake flirts with a fan-turned-actor on the set.

Click here to read In The Fray‘s interview with Louisa Achille, director of The Naked Feminist.

If sex is supposed to be a bad thing, then why did God make it feel so good?” Christi Lake asks as she puts on her mascara and gets ready for work. If you didn’t know Christi, her remark might sound like the battle cry of the 1960s sexual revolution. But for Christi, who is readying herself for another day at the office—that is, nude before a video camera, where she will have sex with one or two other men or women—this maxim cannot be repeated often enough.

Despite the prolific number of people who use pornography—or, as Christi prefers to call it, “adult materials”—and the virtual disappearance of cultural norms shunning the expression of female sexuality, women who earn their living through sex continue to be stigmatized. Subjected to a double standard that regards men who work in the adult entertainment industry as “real men,” women in the industry are typically characterized as inferior, powerless, and morally bankrupt—at least by outsiders.

Inside the industry, though, the women tell another story. As Christi and her colleagues suggest in Australian filmmaker Louisa Achille’s documentary, The Naked Feminist, just because women like sex and do it for a living doesn’t mean they’re oppressed. It would also be shortsighted to believe that these women were just getting paid to have sex, or that men were directing their every move. In fact, many women, including Christi, are executives, directors, actresses, mentors to other women in the industry, and advocates for safe sex, public health, and free speech. In the wake of the recent HIV outbreak in the industry, many of these women have been promoting condom use and safe sex, encouraging the temporary shutdown of film studios, and calling for change in the industry.

Christi, meanwhile, has taken a leave of absence from her work both in front of and behind the camera. But when I spoke with her recently—over two months after I first met Christi and her mom—her determination and her commitment to her colleagues, her fans, and the right to make and watch adult materials was as strong as ever.

Why did you choose this particular line of work?

Purely [out of] curiosity. I was a connoisseur [of adult entertainment]. I had watched adult videos for my own pleasure for a long time, but this became my profession purely by accident … It wasn’t a chosen direction; it just happened. I was a dancer; I went to a convention, went to some photographers, went to New York and did a photo shoot, and then after the photo shoot, I went to another convention where I met the videographers, and they asked me to come out and do a video for them. So it was really just a chain reaction, not planned. To be honest with you, when [a colleague] and I discussed how many videos we thought we’d do in a year, I thought, “I don’t know—eight? Ten? Fifteen at the most?”

It’s seventy-five.We were very new at this and had no clue what we were getting into. Little did I know.

So it wasn’t a chosen [career path]. It was destiny. I was destined to [be an adult entertainer]. Maybe somewhere down the line, someone watching one of my films sees that I have safe sex with a condom, and next time she is getting ready to have sex and her boyfriend wants to [have sex] without using [a condom], she will say, “No, I saw that film, and Christi used a condom.”

Many of the women in The Naked Feminist argue that one of the reasons adult film is so empowering is that it enables creativity. Is it simply that you’re acting, or do you think there are other reasons why you consider it to foster creativity?

Well, we love ripping off movie titles from the mainstream … and doing parodies. But we also feed the mainstream in a lot of ways. When you get a really bad movie, and they’re all talking about the pizza delivery boy—back in the 1970s, almost every other scene was about the pizza delivery boy. We play into mainstream parodies … and make fun of their movies.

[HBO’s] Six Feet Under is a classic example. When I got the script [for an episode of Six Feet Under‘s second season], I remember it said, “cheesy porno music playing in the background, female star moans and groans …” They were making fun of bad adult films, and I just kind of laughed. And when I did my read for them, I think the reason I got the part was because I have been in these sorts of films, I know what some of the cue words are … When it said “V.O.”—voice over—“moans and groans,” I said, “Is this where you want me to do ‘oh oh oh’ [imitates moaning sounds]?” And I started doing it really loudly and was really funny, and they all laughed. They couldn’t believe I went to that next stage. That had to be the reason they hired me for the part—because I made people laugh … I realize they’re making fun of us, and it gives them something to laugh about, and it was cool.

So [adult filmmaking] is art. It might not be high art, obviously, but some of it can be very creative … I just met a friend who did some of the most beautifully artistically done work with the foot fetish, pouring chocolate over a woman’s toes. And I [said], “You need to put this on somewhere. You need to have people see this; this is beautiful.” It’s so artistic because of the way it’s done. You don’t have to appreciate a foot fetish to appreciate the eroticism of it.  So I think we have a very artistic way of doing things …

Many people argue that pornography is oppressive to women because it is used solely for men’s pleasure. What is your response to that criticism?

First off, I hate the word “pornography.” I prefer the term “adult entertainment” … because [people typically associate the term] “pornography” [with] little kids being abused. They don’t remember or think that it’s adult entertainment. They just think of child abuse.

So when people argue that adult material is made for men, well, that’s just not true. I was a viewer myself before I got in the business. I meet more female fans that say, “My boyfriend and I just had a great time. We watched your movie—well, we sort of watched your movie, we watched it for five minutes …” It’s not oppressive to us. Women watch it all the time. I have a huge following of females, so I don’t believe that. I’ve had women say, “Of course we enjoy watching it. We like looking at the hot guys.”

… People use [adult materials] to stimulate foreplay; they use it to spice up their sex lives. Women watch it. They might watch different types of things—maybe—but not necessarily all the time. Because of the Internet and mail-order catalogs, there are at least as many women buying adult materials as there are men.

Many critics of pornography deem your line of work as misogynistic, as degrading toward women, and as targeted at securing pleasure solely for men’s purposes. As a woman in this industry who considers herself a feminist, how do you respond to these charges? Where do you draw the line between misogynistic and nonmisogynistic pornography?

[If the entertainment is] degrading toward the woman, [if it] manipulates [the women involved], then I consider it misogynistic.

If you’re in this industry, you’re told in advance how to approach this. You get an AIDS test, you watch Porno 101, and it is in your hands to decide whether you want to do this particular job or not. When the phone rings and someone says, “I want you to work for me, and I’m going to pay you this amount, and I want you to do this, that, and the other,” you have a right to say no at any moment in that conversation. And I’ve said, “No, I don’t do that type of work.”

[There’s] a man I enjoy spending time with—Max Hardcore. I have not ever worked for him as such, but we’re connected, we joke around. I support him insofar as he has the right to free speech and the right to make whatever he wants to make. Would I work for him? No. Why? Because I don’t enjoy the type of things he provides [for audiences]. He interviewed me to work with him once; he showed me his films. He told me exactly what he expected of me, and he told me he wanted me to do “this, this, and this,” and I looked at him and said, “Oh, no. I don’t think so. I don’t think I can do that. Let me sleep on this.”

I left, went to my boyfriend, who is wonderful, and called the guy the next day and said, “Thank you for the job offer, but that’s really not my thing, and I’m not comfortable doing that.” End of story. I’ve seen him many times since then, and there’s nothing different.

Unfortunately, people who are in this business for the money often make bad choices and then regret [making those choices] later on. And I feel bad for them, but it’s the same thing with someone going into a construction business when he had a bad back already. Well, that’s a bad choice, and you made it, and you have to pay the price.

So [for me] it’s not about doing something for the money. Yes, I do this for a living, but you have to draw the line somewhere in your value system. And most of us do, we really do. We have to. [But] you always hear the stories about “Well, that’s not what I agreed to.” If something makes you uncomfortable, then you should have stopped the film from going on and say, “Stop, that’s not what we agreed to,” and walk away or back it up, and say, “This is what we originally agreed to, and this is what I will do, and either we do this, or I stop.”

… I know girls who enjoy those types of choking holds and all that other stuff. Those are the types of girls who need to work for those types of people. But if you’re not doing it in your private life, you shouldn’t be doing it for your job. Period. That goes for everything. Unless you’ve done it at home and enjoyed the hell out of it, don’t do it for the camera because it’s not worth it.

Christi’s mom: Nightline [did a] documentary following this girl when she first started in the industry, and I was so upset when I saw that. She was into drugs and violence. She was a very extreme case. I had to call Christi and say, “This isn’t true, is it? This is horrible!” It really scared me.

Why do you think those sorts of negative characterizations of women in the adult entertainment industry are more prominent than positive representations of women like yourself, Christi?

Because that’s what people think it is. You have a right to your opinion, and your opinion is somewhat valid. You’re right. That’s one perspective, but there’s another perspective, and that’s that they want ratings. [Adult entertainer] Jenna Jameson has done some wonderful things [helping out with the current HIV crisis in the industry and doing fundraisers], and to me, her work is a true Hollywood story. But you don’t see her on Nightline. You saw the other girl on Nightline because that’s what the news people want to talk about. Who wants to see a happy porn star? It’s like a car accident. [No one wants to pay] attention to the traffic.

I’ve been asked to do many news interviews … but I say, “Unless you can tell me what the questions are going to be in advance and what your tone is going to be for the story, I’m not doing it.” Because if it’s going to be a negative piece, I’ve been burned too many times … I’ve done interviews where I was told this was going to be a positive thing or a mostly positive thing, and it came out negative with very little positive, and I was furious.

Once the guy actually called me to forewarn me that he’d screwed up and that he’d had no choice but to make it this way, and I was like, “Well, I’ll see it; I’ll watch it tonight.” I got phone calls from other girls who had seen it [complaining about the story and its characterization of the industry], and I was so angry and called his machine and filled it up twice. I told him, “I’m never trusting the news media again because of what you’ve done to me. You’ve betrayed me and my friends. How can you do this? You blatantly lied.”

So I think that the media tells people the bad stories [about the pornography industry] because that’s what they want to hear, that’s how they think it is. And by [misrepresenting the pornography industry], their poor little children will be safe at home watching cartoons, even though most cartoons are more violent than anything I’ve ever seen.

How do your parents feel about your line of work?

You know, maybe it’s not the first thing they ever wanted me to do in life—they’ll tell you. Mom?

Christi’s mom: [shakes her head] No.

Christi: But as my dad said when I told my parents what I do for a living, “Why would we be upset about you doing something that we actually watch ourselves?”

And I’m safe. I have a head on my shoulders. I don’t do drugs. I don’t drink alcohol in dangerous amounts. I teach a positive thing. I teach people how to be safe. I help people enhance their pleasure.

And I stand up for what I think is a fundamental right for everybody. It’s like the Mel Gibson movie, [The Passion of the Christ], that just came out … I’m not into religion in any way, shape, or form, but I know the story. I went to see the movie the opening weekend—not to support the Christian bandwagon, but to support Mel Gibson as an artist and to say, “You have every right, whatever your audience thinks, whatever you believe, to put this out there.” And that’s why I went. I always support other people’s [right] to make art. I might not like it. I watched [The Passion of the Christ with my hands] covering the violence and reading the words, and I sat through it. I did see most of it; there were just certain points where I couldn’t watch the violence, where I couldn’t take any more. But that’s okay. He had the right to make and distribute that film.

Tell me a little bit about your boyfriend’s feelings about your career. From The Naked Feminist, I got the impression that he’s perfectly fine with your job.

Yep. When we met, he owned a magazine, and he was interviewing me for his magazine a few years back—five or six years ago. I was already in a relationship, but [that relationship] was on its way out. We had our differences of opinions in terms of the way I wanted to see my career go, and as strong-minded as I am, I decided it was time to go my own way. And it worked out for the best; I’m confident of that. My ex-boyfriend and I are actually now friends and talk as colleagues in the business. We’re not best friends, but we’re colleagues in the business.

But then I kept running into [my current boyfriend] at charity events … so we started dating. And then the magazine wasn’t doing so great, and we were getting more serious. So then I asked him to work for me, taught him how to run the

camera. He already did photography for his magazine, so I taught him how to do the videography part, and he became partners with me.

He was already in the business when he met me, so there were no surprises. I wasn’t trying to say, “By the way, this is what I do.” He already knew, and he accepted it. He looks at me kind of like my mom [does]. I’m an actress. Whatever my job entails is just part of what I do. When the camera stops and the paycheck comes, I go home to him, and he knows that.

One of the things that struck me about The Naked Feminist was that all of the women – all of the adult entertainers – interviewed in the documentary seem to be very close. Tell me a little bit about your relationship with the other women in the industry.

… I’m not sure if I told Janie Hamilton that I was interviewing with Louisa [Achille, director of The Naked Feminist], or if it was the other way around. I don’t remember which way it happened. But either way, because we are friends, [we all ended up being interviewed].

Jane Hamilton is a director I’ve worked for many, many times, and I highly respect Candida Royalle for her initiative, business savvy, and enthusiasm. I mean, [these women] laid the path for my future … and so I know all of them very, very well, as people who respect our industry.

And we’ve taught other girls. Whenever a new girl comes into the industry and … is going through the dilemmas of “Do I want to do this? Do I not want to do this,” I’ll be the first one to take her aside and say, “Look, this is forever. If you have any doubts, walk out of this room right now. Don’t do it. Don’t ever regret your decision to be in this industry because the minute you have a regret, the vultures will tear you up and spit you out.” And I’m honest about that because it’s just like Howard Stern—if he has a guest on his show, and he can find a weakness, he will tear [that person] apart. Our industry is very similar to that … There’s good and bad in everything that you do, but you find the one with more good, the one that works for you.

At my first photo shoot, I met Nina Hartley. I sat and talked to her for a couple of hours. [I said], “Well, I’m thinking about it; I don’t know. I’m just going to do some photos today and see.” And she gave me her wisdom of who I should see if I ever did decide to go further and do films: “If you ever go to California, you’re going to need this, you’re going to need a test.” She informed me of all of the things I would need in advance. So I’m now like the heir apparent to Nina Hartley … and I guess someday [they’ll] need to find an heir apparent to me. [Laughs] So she taught me all of that, and now I make it a point to [mentor] other new women.

Tell me a little bit about why you agreed to be interviewed for The Naked Feminist.

… Actually, I’ve been interviewed for a lot of documentaries that have not seen the light of day, and I’m pretty sure that they were all for personal consumption, to say “look what I got someone to do,” or whatever the case may be. Basically a huge waste of my time.

So when Louisa said she wanted to interview me, I asked, “Well, okay, what is it that you want to accomplish with this?” … After [Louisa and I had spoken] for a while, I said, “I’d be happy to take some time to interview with you.” I met her and found that to be an interesting, wonderful experience in and of itself. We became good friends. It wasn’t about the documentary anymore. It was more about creating the friendship to me. And that’s why I’m here [in Austin at the South-by-Southwest Film Festival]. I normally require a fee for me to do appearances like this, but I told Louisa, “If there’s anything I can do for you, to help you promote your movie …” I would even email her suggestions because I wanted to help her get [The Naked Feminist] out there … And that was when I hadn’t seen the movie yet completed … So now she’s made this wonderful, interesting documentary that I want the world to see for her.

Making The Naked Feminist was a bit of a family affair for you. Your mother is also interviewed in the film. Did she want to be?

Oh, no, I didn’t offer my mother up as a sacrificial lamb. [Louisa] asked if I would ask my mother if she was willing to be interviewed. [My mom has] done radio stuff with me, when I’ve [been] interviewed on the radio, so I said, “Well, I’ll ask her.” So I asked her if she was [willing to be] interviewed on camera. It took her about forty seconds to think about it, then she said, “Well, sure, we’re going to be in town anyway.”

Were you nervous about what they were going to ask you?

Christi’s mom: Well, somewhat. But it wasn’t exactly the first time I’d done something like this. When she got the award a few years ago, she had my husband and I come up on stage with her to receive her award with her.

Christi: [Laughs] Yeah, it was a very proud moment. Every year the Free Speech Coalition presents an award to someone in the industry who has set a positive [example], an activist who has done good work to promote the positive face of adult entertainment.

Four years ago I was the recipient of [the award], and I asked my parents to come out and be there for me. But when it came time to receive my award, I looked at my mom and said, “Mom, do you want to come onstage with me to get this award? Because you’re the one who taught me right from wrong, and who I am, and what I’ve become today.”

And she said, “I don’t know, ask your father.” So I said, “Dad, do you and Mom want to come onstage with me when I [receive] my award?” And my dad said, “Hell, yeah!” He’d already had a couple of drinks, and he did the Rocky thing [putting arms up in the air] …

What is it that you would like viewers to take from seeing The Naked Feminist?

The United States was created due to a lack of tolerance. And then we come over here, and we’ve started becoming more stringent … now we’re back where we started.

These days there isn’t really a single definition of what it means to be a feminist. There just isn’t; it’s an individual interpretation of what feminism means. It’s the same thing with religion and anything else. But you have to tolerate the other person, [whether that person] is a lesbian, is gay, or whatever. If someone is straight as an arrow and has five kids, they aren’t any better than a lesbian. They just have different lifestyles, and we have to tolerate each other’s differences as such.

So when everyone walks in to see this movie, they’re going to have a set mindset. They’ll have their values and opinions. I want them to leave with a broader sense of tolerance and acceptance of other people for who and what they are no matter who and what they are. I hope viewers will be enlightened and more tolerant after seeing The Naked Feminist.

Click here to read In The Fray‘s interview with Louisa Achille, director of The Naked Feminist.

UPDATE, 3/8/13: Edited and moved story from our old site to the current one.

 

Are TV networks losing their religion?

Adding fervor to the religious conservatism debate engulfing the United States, ABC, NBC, and CBS have all rejected a commercial about religious tolerance. Produced by the United Church of Christ (UCC), the 30-second ad implies that other denominations exclude gays and other minorities.

When the Cleveland-based Church conducted focus groups and test market research last spring, the Church found that many people throughout the country feel alienated by churches. It says that the ad is geared toward bringing those people into the Church.

A voiceover in the commercial says, “Jesus didn’t turn away people and neither do we,” as two bouncers standing in front of a church admit only select while people. They turn away a young black woman, a Hispanic-looking man, and two men some may interpret as gay.

The UCC originally pitched the commercial to the networks nine months ago. But the Church decided to try its hand again this fall after the ad was rejected the first time.

Network executives suspect that the Church, one of the most liberal Christian denominations in the U.S., may have been looking to ignite controversy and make a political statement about Bush’s domestic agenda the second time around.

When the Political Action Committee MoveOn pitched an advertisement for CBS to air during the Super Bowl last year, the PAC received just as much or more publicity from the controversy than it would have had the commercial been aired.

NBC simply told the UCC that the advertisement was “too controversial.”

NBC’s head of broadcast standards Alan Wurtzel told reporters, however, that the network would have aired the commercial had the Church emphasized its own inclusiveness without casting others as anti-gay and anti-minorities.

CBS told the UCC’s advertising agency that the network believes the ad’s statement on gays in the church is linked to the controversial debate on gay marriage. The network said it does not accept advertising “on one side of a current controversial issue of public importance.”

This is consistent with what CBS told the liberal Political Action Committee MoveOn last year when the group pitched a commercial for the network to run on Super Bowl Sunday. CBS told MoveOn that it will not advertise commercials with a political agenda.

ABC told the Church that it generally does not accept any religious advertising. The specificity of ABC’s basis for rejection has insulated it from criticism by the UCC.

The Rev. John H. Thomas, the church’s general minister and president, dismisses NBC and CBS’s arguments that the ad is controversial. He says the advertisement had been broadcast in several parts of the country, like Oklahoma City, central Pennsylvania and Florida, “without generating a negative response.”

The UCC has criticized NBC and CBS for playing into the hands of conservative political and religious groups.

Part of me thinks this is true, though I also wonder whether airing a commercial that seems to alienate people of other religions has the potential to play into religious conservatives’ hands, allowing them to say, “Hey, see, we really are compassionate conservatives!”

Maybe this is why Fox News Channel, which consistently casts itself as the pro-Bush conservative arm of the American media, is the only broadcast network airing the commercial. Or maybe Fox is just trying to liberalize its ways…

The ad can be viewed online at http://www.stillspeaking.com.

—Laura Nathan

 

Whose land is it anyway?

issue banner

Presidential elections always demand a degree of individual and collective introspection, ranging from questions of policymaking, patriotism, and citizenship to the utility (or futility) of indirect elections and grassroots political activism. For the candidates, the media, activists on the street, and even InTheFray readers, this election season has proven to be no exception to — and, at times, an exaggeration of — this political rule.

In this issue of InTheFray, we examine the many faces of democracy and the subject that has dominated the news, dinner conversations, and rallies of all varieties throughout the United States — and across much of the world — since at least last spring: the 2004 U.S. presidential election. While InTheFray Assistant Editor Michelle Chen discloses how her trip to China inspired unexpected patriotism in The other half, our literary channel, IMAGINE, borrows a chapter from Opio Sokoni’s Making struggle sexy to elucidate how the American criminal justice system thrives on institutional racism and classism to fill prisons.

Looking beyond the policymaking and cultural concerns of the election, InTheFray moves Inside the beltway, outside politics to explore the deliberations of a traditionally apathetic U.S. citizen, Marna Bunger over whether she and millions of other undecided — and often uninspired — voters can make their votes count in what many have termed “the most important election of our lives.” In Clout concerns, meanwhile, Christopher White takes a look at another angle of the democratic process: the struggle of College Republicans to help their party win the election one college student at a time — with GOP support that is far from five-star quality.

Of course, given that the 2000 election shook so many people’s faith in the electoral process, it’s worth asking whether politics as usual — with thousands of new voters thrown into the mix — can restore faith in the democratic process this year. To answer this question, InTheFray Editor Laura Nathan takes Salman Rushdie’s Step Across This Line Off the Shelf to make sense of this election — and the American democratic process — from a non-native’s perspective in Where the two elections shall meet. While the answers may not be written in stone, this month’s book club selection just may hold the keys to American democracy’s creative potential or prove that progress is off-limits.

There’s only one way to find out. So don’t just sit there. Get out and read — er, vote.

Laura Nathan
InTheFray Editor
Brooklyn, New York

 

Where the two elections shall meet

Salman Rushdie may be a movie star with rock star friends, but he still offers readers of his 2002 essay collection Step Across This Line valuable insight into the 2004 U.S. presidential election, democracy, and the war on terrorism.

When Salman Rushdie’s Step Across This Line: Collected Nonfiction, 1992-2002 was published in 2002, I read it cover-to-cover. His essays became my bedtime stories — and opportunities for politico-cultural ruminations — for several weeks thereafter. Reading it again some two years later, I can’t help but feel a bit giddy at times as I alternate between thinking, “he gets it,” and longing for Rushdie to produce another collection of essays if for no other reason than to flirt with my wit, and offer me insightful new perspectives that remain pertinent this political season.

The essays cover a huge amount of territory: temporally, geographically, and culturally. He reflects on both his first screening of The Wizard of Oz as a young child in India in “Out of Kansas,” and his attendance at a Rolling Stones concert in “In the Voodoo Lounge.” He pays homage to literary greats J.M. Coetzee, Edward Said, and Arundhati Roy, and muses on both the predatory nature of photography in “On Being Photographed,” and the value of the press “in keeping the issues alive” in “Farming Ostriches.”

Now transplanted in, but never wholly of, the United States, Rushdie explores the mundane with a high-caliber literary brilliance. Throughout, Rushdie’s fascination — even boy-like obsession — with contemporary culture is linked to politics. The perfect example of this is his tale of joining U2 onstage during a concert and his admiration of Bono’s success at “reducing Jesse Helms — Jesse Helms! — to tears, winning his support for the campaign against Third World debt.”

For Rushdie, though, it’s not simply such acts of cross-cultural solidarity or unions of the Left that constitute politics. Rather, Rushdie finds politics in the very act of frontier-crossing inherent in both reading and writing: opening one’s eyes, elevating one’s consciousness, allowing oneself to be simultaneously astute and vulnerable to political and moral malleability. As the author explains in “Step Across This Line: The Tanner Lectures on Human Values, Yale, 2002”:

To cross a frontier is to be transformed … At the frontier we can’t avoid the truth; the comforting layers of the quotidian, which insulate us against the world’s harsher realities, are stripped away and wide-eyed in the harsh fluorescent light of the frontier’s windowless halls, we see things as they are … At the frontier our liberty is stripped away — we hope temporarily — and we enter the universe of control. Even the freest of free societies are unfree at the edge, where things and people go out and other people must go in and out. Here, at the edge, we submit to scrutiny, to inspection, to judgment. These people, guarding these lines, must tell us who we are. We must be passive, docile. To be otherwise is to be suspect, and at the frontier to come under suspicion is the worst of all possible crimes … what we mean when we reduce ourselves to these simple statements is, I’m not anything you need to bother about, really I’m not … I am simple. Let me pass.

Did I step across that line and let myself be challenged the last time I read Rushdie’s essays? Certainly. Many times. And re-reading Step Across This Line some two years later, I get the feeling that I’m being questioned once again. This time, though, I cannot help but read from a slightly different position — that of an American who, since her first reading, has seen this country wage a unilateral war in the name of securing the world from terrorism — under the leadership of a man who scarcely knew the names of foreign leaders when he came into office four years ago and who may again win another tight election, even though he has alienated most of those whose names he has since managed to learn.

“About Islam”

Rushdie’s insight on U.S. domestic and foreign policy demands our attention in this election year — even if the publication date makes his essays appear outdated at first glance. Given the author’s personal experience with terrorism in the form of a fatwa issued by Iran’s Ayatollah Khomeini calling for Rushdie’s assassination, the essays offer a unique perspective on the United States’ war on terrorism — likely the deciding factor for many voters. Perhaps predictably, this traumatic experience, which forced Rushdie to go into hiding until the Ayatollah’s 1998 death, has forever changed his life, his politics, and his characterization of Islamic “extremists.”

Born to Muslim parents in India, Rushdie vehemently criticizes what he calls “militant Islam” in several selections in Step Across This Line at a time when demonizing Islam and conflating it with terrorism isn’t exactly politically correct. Somewhere in the process, he contributes to a political reality that may burn as many bridges as many of his other essays seek build.

Consider, for instance, his seemingly trite, yet highly personal and deeply internalized, position concerning the causes of September 11 and the resulting war on terrorism in his November 2001 essay “Not About Islam?”:

Let’s start by calling a spade a spade. Of course this is ‘about Islam.’ The question is, what exactly does that mean? After all, most religious belief isn’t very theological. Most Muslims are not profound Quaranic analysts. For a vast number of ‘believing’ Muslim men, ‘Islam’ stands, in a jumbled, half-examined way, not only for the fear of God — the fear more than the love, one suspects — but also for a cluster of customs, opinions, and prejudices that include their dietary practices; the sequestration or near-sequestration of ‘their’ women; the sermons delivered by their mullah of choice; a loathing of modern society in general, riddled as it is with music, godlessness, and sex; and a more particularized loathing (and fear) of the prospect that their own immediate surroundings could be taken over — ‘Westoxicated’ — by the liberal Western-style way of life.

Highly motivated organizations of Muslim men (oh, for the voices of Muslim women to be heard!) have been engaged, over the last thirty years or so, on growing radical political movements out of this mulch of ‘belief.’ These Islamists …  include the Muslim Brotherhood of Egypt, the blood-soaked combatants of the FIS and GIA in Algeria, the Shia revolutionaries of Iran, and the Taliban. Poverty is their great helper, and the fruit of their efforts is paranoia.

In this passage and numerous others in Step Across This Line, Rushdie can, at times, seem reminiscent of Harvard Professor Samuel Huntington, whose “Clash of Civilizations” thesis foreboded that the post-Cold War world would be fraught with civilization-changing wars between Eastern and Western religions and cultures, with Islam playing a central role. In progressive academic circles, Huntington has long been heavily criticized for his oversimplified characterization of Islam and of relationships between peoples across cultures.

But when Rushdie makes such statements, they seem to reflect authenticity; one cannot simply dismiss the speaker’s words as racist or essentialist. Not only does Rushdie hail from a part of the world and a history where conflict is often the norm, but the Anglo Indian writer-in-exile has literally had his very existence at stake and been affected by so-called terrorism more intimately than almost any American politician waging the war on terrorism. It also doesn’t hurt that Rushdie, in his usual fashion, tells his own narrative in such a compelling manner in “Messages from the Plague Years” that even opponents and skeptics of the war on terrorism can’t help but empathize with Rushdie’s alienation. He has been shunned not only by Iran, but also by his Indian homeland, which quickly renounced The Satanic Verses as anti-Muslim, even though, as the satirist-novelist suggested in a recent interview with St. Petersburg Times writer Margo Hammond, the book was actually intended to depict metropolitan life in Thatcherite London.

At the very least, Rushdie invites those on the Left — many who oppose everything from the war on terrorism to the war in Iraq to the Bush administration — to reconsider the way in which their position allows them to divorce themselves from genuine political action. It also encourages us to consider how — and if — one can reconcile discriminating against “militant Muslims” while demanding that civil liberties and freedom of speech not be sacrificed in the name of the war on terrorism.

“It Wasn’t Me”

On the other hand, Rushdie’s book, which was published prior to the Bush Administration’s March 2003 declaration of war on Iraq, can seem outdated when read in the context of the 2004 election. That is, his demonization of so-called militant Islam certainly has some relevance today, but it cannot effectively address the question that has dominated much of the 2004 campaign: Why did the Bush Administration invade Iraq unilaterally when the Presiden allegedly knew all along that Saddam Hussein did not have any weapons of mass destruction?

While many leftist writers and publications dubbed Rushdie a “Hawk” when, citing the terrible toll taken on the Iraqi people under Saddam, he voiced his support for the dictator’s overthrow, Rushdie has never gone so far as to support Bush’s war. Last month he told C.F. Niles of the People’s Weekly World Newspaper, “President Bush did not tell the truth to the United Nations. Things in Iraq are not getting better, they are getting worse. This is not my opinion — everybody knows that Bush is just electioneering …”

Perhaps Rushdie was borrowing a page from his own book here. Some three years ago, writing about Bush’s claim that there was no proven link between greenhouse gases and global warming in his April 2001 essay “It Wasn’t Me,” Rushdie relayed, “The president has a big microphone, and if he goes on repeating his claims, he may even make them stick for a long, damaging time.” When I initially read “It Wasn’t Me” — an essay suggesting how fitting Shaggy’s hit single (about a man denying an affair even when his girlfriend witnessed him in the act) is at a time where denial keeps the world spinning ‘round, I didn’t fully appreciate Rushdie’s accuracy. Today, however, the truth that those in high places can right their wrongs with countless doses of denial is more evident.

After reading Step Across This Line in the current election milieu, I was repeatedly reminded of President Bush’s insistence that he had made the right choice in unilaterally invading Iraq, even though he justified that invasion with the false information that Saddam did indeed have weapons of mass destruction. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Colin Powell, and many others have conceded, to some extent, that Bush misled the American public to invade Iraq, and yet billions of dollars and thousands of lost lives later, he remains poised to win a second term. Perhaps the best support for Rushdie’s argument comes from an October 22 Boston Globe article, which reveals that “A large majority of self-identified Bush voters polled believe Saddam Hussein provided ‘substantial support’ to Al Qaeda, and 47 percent believe that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction before the US invasion.” All of this despite a flood of stories and high profile reports to the contrary. Bush is apparently at the center of it all — he is, after all, the one with the microphone, as Rushdie says — and everyone else just can’t quite capture the attention of diehard Bush followers. No one else gets as much air time to deny, deny, deny.

Four years none the wiser: Lessons from 2000

Of course, while the free speech — er, free denial — of one American man is helping this election shape up to be as close or closer than the last, the outcome will affect far more than the American people. As Rushdie wrote in his essay entitled Senator Liberman” four years ago, “The citizens of the rest of the world [are] already disconcerted that only about 30 percent of American voters feel it’s worth bothering to vote at all, and the thought that the relative perceived holiness [of the candidates] may be of decisive importance does nothing to reassure us … Today, even the United States’ friends are beginning to wish a Rest of the World candidate were permitted to run. We all live under the aegis of the American Empire’s unchallenged might, so the victorious candidate will be our president, too.”

If Rushdie’s argument made sense four year ago, it’s even more fitting in 2004, at a time when a combination of Bush’s pre-emptive doctrine and the United States’ disregard for its allies’ opinions have spurred a drastic decline in the world’s opinion of the United States. Not that long ago, I mulled over the possibility that non-Americans should get to vote for the U.S. president. Often it seems that there are far more people across the globe who criticize — and sometimes praise — the ways in which they’re affected by U.S. policy than there are Americans who concern themselves with the far-reaching consequences of Washington, D.C., decisions. But given the controversy that has arisen in several states over new Americans registering to vote, the possibility that the Republicans or Democrats would so much as entertain the idea of opening the U.S. presidential election up to citizens of the world seems extremely remote, to say the least.

Fortunately, the next best possibility — heeding the advice and insight of those looking in — is well within reach thanks to the wonders of modern media. While Rushdie can’t vote here, he can offer an outsider’s view of how the democracy we practice in the United States can impact billions of people worldwide. He can offer as well an insider’s view into another democratic system — that of his Indian homeland, which, he writes, “is like the United States a large federation of regionalisms, where people define themselves first as Bengalis, Tamils, Kashmiris, and so on, and only after that as Indians. But India, with far fewer resources than the USA, has managed — albeit imperfectly — to run a constituency-based, direct-election democracy for over half a century. It’s hard to grasp why Americans can’t do the same.”

While Rushdie certainly raises useful questions concerning indirect democracy’s necessity and its ability to represent minorities — many whose ballots went uncounted or who were barred from voting on Election Day 2000 — his criticism of American democracy could not, of course, be fully realized when he wrote this first essay after Election Day 2000. Sure, he correctly indicated that the Electoral College foolishly allows for the possibility of a tie. He also pointed out — quite eloquently — that the United States often provides election assistance to developing countries to teach them how to build “fair” and “efficient” democracies while it can’t even count all of its own votes or find a non-partisan way to quell the political bickering that predominates during election season — particularly during election overtime season.

But it was in his December 2000 piece “A Grand Coalition?” that Rushdie raised a question deserving of far more attention then and now. That is, when an election ends in what essentially amounts to a tie, might it make more sense to resolve it through a coalition government — one where, for instance, the Bush/Cheney Administration serves half the term and the Kerry/Edwards Administration serves the other two years, or where the vice presidential candidate on the ticket that garners a few more votes steps aside and allows the other presidential candidate to serve as vice president?

As President Clinton said back in 2000 during the 35-day election standoff, “The people have spoken. It’s just that we don’t yet know what they mean.” Might it be possible that some sort of coalition government — a system that has worked reasonably well in many other democracies — provides the best answer to the problem of the divided nation? Perhaps it would even help unite it, as Bush promised — falsely — to do four years ago.

STORY INDEX

TOPICS >

Iraq War >

“Edward Said, Salman Rushdie, and the Iraq War” by Dr. Sabah Salih
URL: http://home.cogeco.ca/~kurdistan3/11-5-04-opinion-sabah-rushdie-and-irq-war.html

Islam >

”War on Iraq: Where are the Islamic Moderates?” by Mark LeVine and Raymond Baker
URL: http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/15050/

Interviews >

A Conversation with Salman Rushdie
URL: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1177360

Salman Rushdie, Out and About
URL: http://www.powells.com/authors/rushdie.html

Election >

”How the Grinch Stole America” by Salman Rushdie
URL: http://www.guardian.co.uk/US_election_race/Story/0,2763,417622,00.html

Marketplace >
(A portion of proceeds from all books purchased through the Powells.com link below help support InTheFray)

Step Across This Line by Salman Rushdie
URL: http://www.powells.com/cgi-bin/biblio?inkey=2-0679463348-3&partner_id=28164