Saturday, November 10. 2007In MemoriamTrackbacks
Trackback specific URI for this entry
No Trackbacks
Comments
Display comments as
(Linear | Threaded)
thanks, peter. i've been readin too many obits and articles that seem to spring from jealousy or at least misundertanding of mr mailer and/or his work.
NY Post
New York, February 2, 2008 Holocaust in Dresden, 1945: Bodies are piles up for mass cremation after the British and American air raid of February 1945 killed over one hundred thousand in one night Kurt Vonnegut's Last Roar February 2, 2008 -- KURT Vonnegut is gone - but he left behind a final book that's sure to cause a stir. In "Armageddon in Retrospect," out this April, the former Army man gives a jolting account of the relentless bombing of Dresden during World War II and how US forces passed out pamphlets to survivors justifying it as the "unintentional, unavoidable fortunes of war." He writes: "The leaflet should have read: We hit every blessed church, hospital, school, museum, theater, your university, the zoo and every apartment building in town, but we honestly weren't trying hard to do it . . . So sorry. Saturation bombing is all the rage these days."
Would be nice to hear your thoughts about some of the amazing events happening these days. The comets, the rash of UFO sightings, the fumigation of NYC, etc. Check out newyorkskywatch.com and let us know what you think...
"I admired his approach to culture and the politics of culture."
Including his virulent misogyny, which he acted out in real life in such ways as stabbing his wife Adele nearly to death? I agree with Johann Hari: http://www.johannhari.com/archive/article.php?id=1210 If Mailer had been a vicious racist, nobody would have given him a pass. Hating women, though? Just a mere pecadillo, right?
Hi.
I can understand your reaction, of course, but I should respond. I knew his personal assistant, Judith McNally, for all the time she worked for him. Had Mr Mailer been a "virulent misogynist", as you say, Judith would not have lasted one week, much less the over 20 years she did (until the day she died). I knew Judith well; she was a feminist in the 1960s mold as well as an activist for various causes, from animal rights to Palestinian issues. She was not the type to suffer fools gladly, or at all. Further, I know his wife, Norris, who also would not have stood for the kind of person you describe but instead remained married to him for decades. As per his stand on feminism, Mailer was not a doctrinaire anything. He did not believe in slogans, jingoism, or easy answers to complex questions. I don't believe one could call him either a feminist or an anti-feminist. He took issue with feminism as it was known and understood in the 1960s, and in the past few years there has been a re-evaluation of Mailer's stand vis-a-vis feminism and his reputation in that regard has been salvaged a bit. Learned papers on this topic have been presented at various symposia on Mailer's work, papers -- I might add -- written by women scholars. Yes, Mailer stabbed Adele. And William Burroughs shot his wife in the head. In obituaries for both men, these events are duly noted. They have not been glossed over. In fact, the stabbing of Adele usually makes the first paragraph in any article about Norman Mailer, as Burrough's killing of his wife makes the first paragraph in any article about him. But to say that Mailer hated women ignores the basic facts of the rest of his life and work. I don't know: he may have hated Adele (which is not to say that the stabbing was justified!). But he didn't hate his daughters, and he certainly didn't hate Judith or Norris Church, as I was able to observe first hand. Thus, I have to disagree with Johann Hari's article.
Just because a man is a misogynist doesn't mean he doesn't occasionally befriend or otherwise become fond of a woman...usually because "she's not like all those other, shallow, gossipy, deceitful, [insert pejoratives here] women." Meaning, quite often, that she never challenges him. Since McNally was his personal assistant, and therefore in a subordinate position, perhaps that was true of her.
Plenty of men who are steadfastly opposed to women's rights love their daughters, and wives, or at least claim to. Somehow, this "love" and viewing the gender of said daughters/wives as fully human are mutually exclusive. Finally, I can't precisely get too excited at the fact that "women scholars" have tried to salvage Mailer's reputation. Women can be misogynists. In fact, some of them are viciously so. It's called internalized misogyny. These is all pretty basic feminist truisms. It's disappointing, but not surprising, to see "progressive" men out there who don't get it, all these years later. Oh, and on a side note: I'm pro-Israel and anti-animal rights, so count me as unimpressed with McNally's activism.
You see, that's the problem. If a woman scholar defends Mailer's position on feminism, then she is an "internalized misogynist". In other words, there is no winning this argument. One has to be either for you (personally) or against you. (personally) in order to become identified as a misogynist or not. You have not read the work being done by these scholars, but you have already characterized their position.
As for McNally ... challenging Mailer was what she did, on a virtually daily basis. She was not a "subordinate" in any normal sense of the word, aside from the fact that she was paid a salary. She was nobody's fool, and had a reputation of being tough and uncompromising. Of course, according to your idee fixe, she was part of the problem and not the solution. We are arguing at cross-purposes since I knew the people in question and you did not. All I can do is report what I observed, over the course of many, many years. It's easy to throw stones from a comfortable distance, and to quote sources that bolster your opinion while ignoring those that disagree. For instance, you are unimpressed with McNally's activism because you don't share her political views: this makes her feminism suspect in your eyes, while the mere fact that she was such an activist for unpopular causes should make you question whether your characterization of her is fair. I don't mean that her causes automatically give her feminist credentials, but that one is forced to examine the case more closely. She was not a cypher but an active participant in many ways. But if you start with the premise that Mailer was a "virulent misogynist" then you can argue backwards from there to find proof of your position. And, of course, just because he treated his family well does not mean that he was not a misogynist; I offered those examples as evidence, not as ultimate proof. If a man mistreats his family -- particularly the women in his family -- we might be justified in claiming his misogyny; but if he treats his family well, with love and affection and deep concern, then we have to look elsewhere for proof of misogyny. Of course, there are those who characterize all "old white men" as the enemy: a stereotype as useless as any other. There is no information, no data, in the stereotype ... or in your response to my posting on Mailer's death. I don't expect everyone (or even most people, or even many people) to agree with the things that I write. I simply offer the data that I have collected, and others can make up their minds. You have made up yours. We disagree. Maybe that means I "don't get it." We're going to have to let history decide on that one. I spent enough time in enough "situations" in the Sixties to realize that there were usually two (or more) sides to any political or cultural question. You have your side, and I respect it. But it is not consistent with the facts as I know them, so I can't share them. |
Calendar
QuicksearchArchivesCategoriesBlog AdministrationLinks Referenced |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||