A few (many) harsh words for Erica Jong

Last October, there was a whole lot of talk and writing accusing young feminists of forgetting what their foremothers had done for them, choosing the wrong battles, and letting the progress that had been made slip away. Well, here’s another in that same vein, by Erica Jong.

Her assertion is that young women and feminists have lost interest in sex, and, forgetting (or worse yet, underestimating) the importance of the sexual revolution, are adopting attitudes characteristic of the hyper-repressed 1950s. She fears that this pattern is going to result in feminists losing ground on the issue. The evidence: five essays written by young women…that evince a lack of interest in sex.

Friends, Romans, feminists: are you interested in sex?

Do you think sex is important? Do you value your sexual liberty? The unique thrills of human intimacy? The right to reproductive health care?

I DIDN’T THINK SO oh but wait, yes, I suspect a lot of us are interested in sex. I am! But she didn’t ask me. She didn’t ask Tristan Taormino, either, about monogamy, or pleasure, or sexual freedom. She didn’t ask the young feminist behind IAmDrTiller, or the badass young doctor who wrote this piece for the Hairpin whether or not they valued the right to bodily autonomy. She did’t ask Mac McClelland if it was important to be able to seek whatever the hell kind of sex feels right at any given time. Hey- it looks like a whole hell of a lot of us didn’t get an invitation to that meeting.

Yeah, her piece made me grumpy. When Fox News generalizes about folks like me, I couldn’t care less. However, when I feel misrepresented and underestimated by older feminists, it hurts. So if I’m being harsh, excuse me: the original piece was harsh on us, too. It is so rife with problems, I can’t believe Erica Jong wrote it. And yes, of course I appreciate all the delicious irony of Third Wave Housewife writing this critique.

First I’ll address something completely separate from her assessment of young feminists, and that is her perception of the sexual revolution. I can relate to her mistake: after seven years as a sex educator, I can’t imagine how one doesn’t know exactly how to use a condom or how contraceptives work. I always have to check myself against the world in which work does not usually involve making Powerpoint presentations about safe anal sex and contraceptive options. Well, I think Jong forgot to check her lived experience against the rest of the world. Her article is written as if of course the sexual revolution Changed Everything For Everyone Forever, which, as we know, it did not, but decades later, it is the myth of the revolution that survives.

The sexual revolution certainly changed a lot, for a lot of people, but it didn’t completely erase the dominant, oppressive views of women and sex that prohibited people from pursuing sexual pleasure on their own terms. It made liberal attitudes more visible, though, surely. Among progressive circles, people felt free to do what felt good. But also among progressive circles, if you didn’t want to get in on the free love action, you were a prude. Contraceptives weren’t what they are today, and without reliable contraceptives, sex could be a bigger risk for those with ovaries than without. People found contraceptives and ways to procure abortions, but with many risks and obstacles. Somewhere behind the myth of free love, there are young women who were browbeaten into “liberated” sex lives that they didn’t want, and saddled with children that they couldn’t manage to prevent.

Why wouldn’t everyone want free love, though? Well, I’ll preface this answer with it’s really none of your business why anyone does or does not fuck in a certain way. No means no, no questions asked. A potential explanation, though: outside progressive circles, change was limited. Dominant attitudes were still conservative, and no, the entire world was not at Woodstock…shit, Joni Mitchell wasn’t even there, and she wrote “Woodstock.” And doesn’t that demonstrate an important fact? That period of American history is really really susceptible to mythologizing and romanticizing, both by people who lived it and people who didn’t. Those relaxed attitudes were actually held by a loud and fairly powerful minority, not the entire country. If a woman wanted to be accepted and supported by her community, in most cases, free love was probably not a good idea. And not everyone was in a position to say “fuck what you think!” Not everyone could make it alone or afford to alienate themselves from society at large. Always check your privilege, feminist writers. Always.

With that in mind, one of the most infuriating parts of Jong’s piece was this:

The backlash against sex has lasted longer than the sexual revolution itself. Both birth control and abortion are under attack in many states. Women’s health care is considered expendable in budgetary negotiations. And the right wing only wants to champion unborn children.

I don’t think that was our idea. If that was a young feminist’s idea, let that young feminist step forward and present their club membership card, because it is hereby revoked. There wasn’t a golden age of equality after the sexual revolution. The hostile undercurrent that has just recently exploded into record numbers of abortion restrictions was always there, trying to chip away at our rights. And suddenly, a perfect storm of circumstances allowed it to gain ground.

How far will we go in destroying women’s equality before a new generation of feminists wakes up?

We are awake, thank you. We’re Slutwalking and rallying (even in relentless windy Western New York winters! LOOK HOW YOUNG THOSE SUPPORTERS ARE.) and Boehner bashing and throwing benefits for Planned Parenthood (another event held outside in the frozen tundra of Western New York) every day. In a country where “feminism” is still a dirty word that even some seemingly progressive, well…feminists, are afraid to utter, we are still very much underdogs. There was and still is a lot to do. If you’re congratulating yourself on what your generation did for women, and criticizing the younger generation for failing to completely stamp out all traces of inequality, take a look at more of our efforts…not five isolated articles. Also, check your squicky, heteronormative tone, because your privilege is showing again (emphasis mine):

Different though we are, men and women were designed to be allies, to fill out each other’s limitations, to raise children together and give them different models of adulthood. We have often botched attempts to do this, but there is valor in trying to get it right, to heal the world and the rift between the sexes, to pursue the healing of home and by extension the healing of the earth.

Really? Wait, what is this I see? You accused young feminists of being “obsessed” with motherhood (I guess because lots of women want kids and feminists aren’t supposed to do that)? Third Wave Housewife and Mister Third Wave Housewife have no intentions of raising children together, despite the fact that we do plenty of fornicating and could totally make that into a lot of reproducing if we threw away the condoms, the calendars, and our self-control.

But you don’t like the word control, either. That’s right.

Just as the watchword of my generation was freedom, that of my daughter’s generation seems to be control. Is this just the predictable swing of the pendulum or a new passion for order in an ever more chaotic world?

What could possibly be wrong with control? Control doesn’t have to mean paternalistic control: the control we champion is control of one’s sex life from all angles. We want to control our fertility, we want to control the when, where, how, and how much of sex.

We want exactly what our predecessors wanted: sex and pleasure on our terms, not somebody else’s. Not on the kyriarchy’s terms, and not on your terms, either.