Thoughts from an interview with Caitlin Flanagan, who I think is a very good and interesting writer. (She's published a lot, but this article, which I can hardly believe was published over 10 years ago, is the first I remember reading by her. I still think about it.)
The interviewer is Jeffrey Goldberg, editor-in-chief of The Atlantic. The whole thing is worth listening to, but here's a bit from the very end, where they're winding down a discussion of sex, #metoo, toxic feminism, and fraternities:
The interviewer is Jeffrey Goldberg, editor-in-chief of The Atlantic. The whole thing is worth listening to, but here's a bit from the very end, where they're winding down a discussion of sex, #metoo, toxic feminism, and fraternities:
Goldberg: “Caitlin Flanagan…”
Flanagan: “...You’re fired!”
Goldberg: [Laughs] “No, we love having you at The Atlantic, because you say interesting things and you don’t really give a shit.”
Flanagan: “I don’t give a shit.”
Goldberg: “Why don’t you give a shit? Because so many people give a shit right now.”
Flanagan: “Because this is why…it sounds so corny…I love America. You don’t have to be liked. Willy Loman should stop worrying. We have these freedoms that everybody mocks. You can say whatever you want. You know, you’ll get a lot of enemies, but…there’s 20 people I really care what they think about me. My family and my closest friends. After that, I don’t care. If people are offended or they don’t like it then they can turn this podcast off...It doesn’t matter if somebody likes what you say or not, you have the right to say it, you have the right to think it, you have a right to read the great books, and be the “artist reader” of the book as Nabokov would say and make your own meaning of the book. Beyond that it just doesn’t matter.”
First of all: excellent use of literary references. Second: I admire the sentiment. I doubt many people (myself included) would be able to carry off not giving a shit as well as Flanagan, especially since she can apparently not give a shit and keep her job, but I admire the sentiment nonetheless. And Jeffrey Goldberg is right to mention that she says interesting stuff and doesn't give a shit in the same breath. Because when everyone gives a shit things are so boring. If you watched the Oscar's this year, you know what I mean. A room of people carefully selected and eager for approval; I've been to academic panels more exciting.
4 comments:
I go back and forth between liking and being super frustrated with her. The Sanguine Sex is a great article, but it has lines that make me want to scream, like how it is a womanly thing to do to coyly trick someone into buying a shag carpet for you. I think part of her appeal is making grand statements about the "truth" of men and women, which do contain insight, but statements like that undermine it for me.
I thought the fraternity article was excellent.
I don't disagree. I think the fact that she has nuanced views and writes beautifully makes me overlook things that would otherwise annoy me. But I'm way less frustrated by her now than I was 10 years ago.
I'm not sure I agree that the womanly remark is an insult, though.
It's not so much that it's an insult, but that it rings so hollow and seems so false to me. And it makes me feel duped. I'm disinclined to read her kind of gender essentialist views to begin with, because they don't ring true for me, even now/especially now in a marriage with children. BUT I do anyway, because I think she is smart and a good writer, and interesting, and maybe her interpretations have important implications for seemingly gendered problems in life, like metoo and fraternities. But then she says stuff like that, and it makes me question the whole premise.
Why are you less frustrated now than 10 years ago?
10 years ago the gender essentialist stuff bothered me more. The grand statements do still ring hollow in many ways, on that I agree with you! But 10 years ago I thought acknowledging any essential differences between men and women meant a tacit endorsement of inequality, whereas now I don't think that at all. I wouldn't say she's right about all the essential differences, but the idea doesn't bother me anymore.
Post a Comment