What an asshat!
Daughters of Slaves: The historical reasons why women think, talk, and act the way they do today, by Frank Hilliard.
Sense something wrong here?
First read this (don't forget to check out the cover illustration!).
Then read my response:
Dear Mr. Hilliard,
I happened upon the website of your book "Daughters of Slaves" and read the intro. I feel compelled to comment on it; I find that it's far more useful to explain rationally why something offends you than to react with anger immediately.
To start, I will give you my first reason for finding your intro objectionable: It's not necessarily what you're saying, it's how you're saying it. I appreciate that you suggest that generations of abuse by men is what caused the state of female sexuality in the form that it exists in your experience--I agree that our imbalanced heterosexual history has played a huge part in forming our cultural, sexual attitudes, male and female alike. However, what you seem to fail to realize is that the way you defend these theories--in particular when you suggest that women who will challenge your views are simply trying to continue hiding something that you have already figured out ("The problem women have discussing this subject is that they think there's nothing to discuss. They think female sexuality is so complicated, so complex, so well-hidden, it can never be winkled out. Like an oyster on the seabed, women believe their disguise is perfect.")--shows yet another instance of that disregard for women's intellectual capabilities and the worth of their opinions--the very thing you have identified as the age-old problem afflicting contemporary sexuality.
I think this passage also shows the aforementioned disregard: "Asking women about sex is like asking fish about water. They're so immersed in it, they don't know what it is any more. For a woman, sex is life, essentially indescribable. And anyway, they'll add, it's none of your business. This book is going to make it your business."
In your own words, you acknowledge women saying that their sexuality is none of men's business--and in the very next sentence, you instantly dismiss women's ownership and expertise of their own sexuality by simply taking what they would not give you--permission to analyze female sexuality--and sharing it with other men who have no more authority nor ability to expound on the personal experiences of women than you do.
In my own experience as a woman, I've found that I and many women who are asked respectfully are generally very willing and happy to discuss the intricacies of female sexuality--it interests them just as much as it does you. However, the most common reason for a woman to reply that female sexuality is not a man's business--in other words, refuse to discuss it with him--is if that man is being disrespectful, perhaps assuming he already knows the answers to the questions he should be asking. If you have not had luck with women in this arena, I suggest you read your own words to figure out why they might not be inclined to reveal their most passionate sexual natures to you.
Another fundamental flaw in your logic, as it seems to me, is that the 'problem' you reference in male-female sexual interaction seems to be thus: women are driven by years of historical mistreatment to defensively conceal the sexy 'bad' girl within, thereby leaving men unable to put together media images of 'bad' girls and the 'good', sexless girls they know from day-to-day life.
It seems to me, Mr. Hilliard, that women not being overtly sexual presents a far greater problem to men (specifically, men who want the pleasure of encountering sexually stimulating women in every environment) than it does to women. Women live the sexual lives they live; I find it rather presumptuous that you seem to feel yourself entitled to burst into the scene, full of rather arrogant assumptions that you've figured out women's grown-of-necessity 'disguise' of concealing their sexualities from men, presuming to 'solve' this 'problem' and clue in other men to the mysteries you've unraveled. This is particularly troubling since the driving force behind your concern for the state of women's sexual health seems to be that the women you interact with daily aren't 'sexy' enough.
In your intro, you ask 'Why not?' in response to a hypothetical challenge of your authority on this subject. The reason I am presenting to you in this email is this: Women's sexuality is not the property of men, not yours nor the men you are writing your book for. It is formed by women, controlled by women, and to be decided how to be used by women as it suits them in the course of their own lives. Whatever observations you may have made in the course of your 40 years, I find it highly unlikely that you have enough expertise in the area to be challenging women on the matter of female sexuality.
I agree with your belief that women have as strong a sex drive as men, although it certainly manifests itself differently. I think there are indeed more similarities between male and female sexualities than are perhaps perceived in common wisdom. However, there are also strong and important differences. A primary one which your intro does not place value on--in fact, which it actively degrades--is the importance inherent in a woman's sexuality that the right to define it is hers and hers alone--and what you seem not to realize is that the insulting attitude of your language absolutely undermines whatever good ideas you do have to present to your readers.
You may understand some parts of female sexuality--but if you don't understand and respect women's right to define their own sexuality (including their right to conceal it when and if they so desire), you have missed out on perhaps the most important part of understanding the sexual nature of women. Your readers are being misled--these little snippets of ideas will not help them if they get them embedded in something fundamentally repulsive to contemporary women--disrespect. That's not going to help them with the ladies at all.
Essentially, I am saying that it is not any man's place to assume that because a given woman is not 'sexually liberated'--or, as you put it, a 'bad' girl--that she is necessarily suffering from an antiquated defense mechanism that must be overcome in the interest of better personal and societal health. Remember, almost every woman has revealed her more lusty, sexual side to someone, more likely many someones, over the course of her life--simply because she does not choose to reveal it to you, or to most men in general, or in certain situations (such as at her job), does not mean she is in some way lacking in sexual health. It just means the other parts of her personality that are equally as important as sexuality are being prioritized in a given environment.
If you want to solve the problems between men and women, Mr. Hilliard, I would say the first step is to try a little basic respect. Maybe then we can all begin to move beyond our history.
Sincerely,
Amy
Okay, this isn't the best-written letter--I'm hoping you'll cut me some slack, as I was incensed at the time!
Sense something wrong here?
First read this (don't forget to check out the cover illustration!).
Then read my response:
Dear Mr. Hilliard,
I happened upon the website of your book "Daughters of Slaves" and read the intro. I feel compelled to comment on it; I find that it's far more useful to explain rationally why something offends you than to react with anger immediately.
To start, I will give you my first reason for finding your intro objectionable: It's not necessarily what you're saying, it's how you're saying it. I appreciate that you suggest that generations of abuse by men is what caused the state of female sexuality in the form that it exists in your experience--I agree that our imbalanced heterosexual history has played a huge part in forming our cultural, sexual attitudes, male and female alike. However, what you seem to fail to realize is that the way you defend these theories--in particular when you suggest that women who will challenge your views are simply trying to continue hiding something that you have already figured out ("The problem women have discussing this subject is that they think there's nothing to discuss. They think female sexuality is so complicated, so complex, so well-hidden, it can never be winkled out. Like an oyster on the seabed, women believe their disguise is perfect.")--shows yet another instance of that disregard for women's intellectual capabilities and the worth of their opinions--the very thing you have identified as the age-old problem afflicting contemporary sexuality.
I think this passage also shows the aforementioned disregard: "Asking women about sex is like asking fish about water. They're so immersed in it, they don't know what it is any more. For a woman, sex is life, essentially indescribable. And anyway, they'll add, it's none of your business. This book is going to make it your business."
In your own words, you acknowledge women saying that their sexuality is none of men's business--and in the very next sentence, you instantly dismiss women's ownership and expertise of their own sexuality by simply taking what they would not give you--permission to analyze female sexuality--and sharing it with other men who have no more authority nor ability to expound on the personal experiences of women than you do.
In my own experience as a woman, I've found that I and many women who are asked respectfully are generally very willing and happy to discuss the intricacies of female sexuality--it interests them just as much as it does you. However, the most common reason for a woman to reply that female sexuality is not a man's business--in other words, refuse to discuss it with him--is if that man is being disrespectful, perhaps assuming he already knows the answers to the questions he should be asking. If you have not had luck with women in this arena, I suggest you read your own words to figure out why they might not be inclined to reveal their most passionate sexual natures to you.
Another fundamental flaw in your logic, as it seems to me, is that the 'problem' you reference in male-female sexual interaction seems to be thus: women are driven by years of historical mistreatment to defensively conceal the sexy 'bad' girl within, thereby leaving men unable to put together media images of 'bad' girls and the 'good', sexless girls they know from day-to-day life.
It seems to me, Mr. Hilliard, that women not being overtly sexual presents a far greater problem to men (specifically, men who want the pleasure of encountering sexually stimulating women in every environment) than it does to women. Women live the sexual lives they live; I find it rather presumptuous that you seem to feel yourself entitled to burst into the scene, full of rather arrogant assumptions that you've figured out women's grown-of-necessity 'disguise' of concealing their sexualities from men, presuming to 'solve' this 'problem' and clue in other men to the mysteries you've unraveled. This is particularly troubling since the driving force behind your concern for the state of women's sexual health seems to be that the women you interact with daily aren't 'sexy' enough.
In your intro, you ask 'Why not?' in response to a hypothetical challenge of your authority on this subject. The reason I am presenting to you in this email is this: Women's sexuality is not the property of men, not yours nor the men you are writing your book for. It is formed by women, controlled by women, and to be decided how to be used by women as it suits them in the course of their own lives. Whatever observations you may have made in the course of your 40 years, I find it highly unlikely that you have enough expertise in the area to be challenging women on the matter of female sexuality.
I agree with your belief that women have as strong a sex drive as men, although it certainly manifests itself differently. I think there are indeed more similarities between male and female sexualities than are perhaps perceived in common wisdom. However, there are also strong and important differences. A primary one which your intro does not place value on--in fact, which it actively degrades--is the importance inherent in a woman's sexuality that the right to define it is hers and hers alone--and what you seem not to realize is that the insulting attitude of your language absolutely undermines whatever good ideas you do have to present to your readers.
You may understand some parts of female sexuality--but if you don't understand and respect women's right to define their own sexuality (including their right to conceal it when and if they so desire), you have missed out on perhaps the most important part of understanding the sexual nature of women. Your readers are being misled--these little snippets of ideas will not help them if they get them embedded in something fundamentally repulsive to contemporary women--disrespect. That's not going to help them with the ladies at all.
Essentially, I am saying that it is not any man's place to assume that because a given woman is not 'sexually liberated'--or, as you put it, a 'bad' girl--that she is necessarily suffering from an antiquated defense mechanism that must be overcome in the interest of better personal and societal health. Remember, almost every woman has revealed her more lusty, sexual side to someone, more likely many someones, over the course of her life--simply because she does not choose to reveal it to you, or to most men in general, or in certain situations (such as at her job), does not mean she is in some way lacking in sexual health. It just means the other parts of her personality that are equally as important as sexuality are being prioritized in a given environment.
If you want to solve the problems between men and women, Mr. Hilliard, I would say the first step is to try a little basic respect. Maybe then we can all begin to move beyond our history.
Sincerely,
Amy
Okay, this isn't the best-written letter--I'm hoping you'll cut me some slack, as I was incensed at the time!