Judith Levine - Вредно для несовершеннолетних

In the end, the University administration yielded to the legislature's pressure and instituted an outside review of the University of Minnesota Press's editorial practices. The review was more than vindicating: UMP's standards were found to equal those at other university presses and in some instances were deemed «more rigorous than most.» But the effects of the attack are likely to linger anyway. Just as the American Psychological Association's surrender emboldened Bruce Rind's attackers to go after me, the University of Minnesota's acquiescence in my case is likely to encourage other smear campaigns and censorship threats. 1Commercial publishers, who shied away from the book on the first round, will only be more squeamish about similarly controversial titles. The Christian conservative organizations, whose public profiles had lately flattened, enjoyed a momentary spike of attention. And Tim Pawlenty's career soared. He was elected governor of Minnesota in 2002, from which office he is overseeing massive cuts to the state's higher-education budget.

When asked to explain the «firestorm of controversy» (as everyone called it) around Harmful to Minors, I always answered that the book was about the American hysteria over children's sexuality and this attack was an example of the same hysteria.

But hysteria is the wrong word. Hysteria—irrational fear, panic, exaggerated rage—surely moved many of the letter-writers and my would-be assassin. But hysteria implies something more anarchic and unconsciously motivated than what happened to me, or to Rind or SIECUS, or before us to sex researchers, educators, and advocates from Margaret Sanger to Alfred Kinsey to Joycelyn Elders— indeed, from the original modern proponent of «normalizing» children's sexuality, Sigmund Freud, to the public school teacher who utters the word clitoris in a seventh-grade classroom.

What happened to us all was more deliberate, orchestrated, and sophisticated than hysteria. We were the targets of a campaign prosecuted by sexual ideologues and political opportunists for whom the incitement of hysteria is only one tactic. I knew the histories of these campaigns — Harmful to Minors tells them. But every book publication teaches the author something she didn't learn in writing the book. My lesson, as the object of what I'd written about, was an intimate knowledge of the way anti-sex campaigns work.

Distortion

Here's how Sean Hannity of Fox News' TV mudslinger Hannity and Colmes quoted Harmful to Minors : «We relish our erotic attraction to children.»

This is what Harmful to Minors says: «We relish our erotic attraction to children, says [literary critic James] Kincaid. ... But we also find that attraction abhorrent.» Not only does the book extensively discuss this contradiction, I was quoting somebody else.

In a petition for the suppression of Harmful to Minors to Minnesota's then-governor, Jesse Ventura, Jim Hughes of Survivors And Victims Empowered (SAVE) wrote: «Levine's previous work provides us a clue to her pro-pedophile thinking...She describes men this way: Men's sexuality is mean and violent, and men so powerful that they can 'reach WITHIN women to...construct us from the inside out.' Satan-like, men possess women, making their wicked fantasies and desires women's own. A woman who has sex with a man therefore, does so against her will, 'even if she does not feel forced.' »

Actually, this passage, from my first book, My Enemy, My Love, is a quotation from someone else too. The characterization of men's sexuality comes from the propaganda of a group called Women Against Sex, which I describe as representing «the most extreme edge of an already marginal politics.» I also call them «nutty.»

Selective quotation, exaggeration, and outright lies are time-honored tactics of the Right. Judith Reisman has long circulated the calumny that Alfred Kinsey conducted sexual experiments on infants at his institute; she offers no substantiation. Focus on the Family routinely refers to sex-ed curricula as «pornography.» For decades, sex-ed opponents have broadcast rumors of teachers disrobing in the classroom and children molding genitals out of clay. In Talk About Sex , sociologist Janice M. Irvine calls these «depravity narratives,» tales that strain credibility one by one, but in great enough numbers stir suspicion that something like them must be true. Would I actually molest my niece and nephew? A listener might dismiss that insinuation as too extreme. But a person like me who wrote a book like that might do something almost as bad—such as condoning molestation.

In the past, such stories were reproduced in right-wing publications and at public meetings, on radio and television. The Internet only multiplies the speed and reach of this dissemination. By June, 2002, a Google search for the term «Judith Levine abuse» yielded more than 7,400 matches, most resembling the second one on the screen: «BOUNDLESS — EXCUSING CHILD ABUSE...One of the apostles of this movement, Judith Levine...»

In an already combustible atmosphere of sexual panic, distortions and lies raise the temperature and throw in the match. Voil, a «firestorm of controversy.»

Guilt by Association, or Sexual McCarthyism

The charge against me was not only that I am an advocate of pedophilia, but that I am part of an organized and increasingly influential «pro-pedophile lobby,» whose aim is «normalizing» child abuse. One clue to my membership was that citation of Bruce Rind. Another was the author of the book's foreword, Joycelyn Elders. You may remember Elders' pro-pedophilic crime. She told an audience of sex educators that masturbation would be an appropriate topic of sex-ed classroom discussion; this inspired the Republican House of Representatives in 1994 to demand her resignation. Knight, on Concerned Women's Web site, described the events this way: «Elders was fired by Bill Clinton shortly after she began a campaign to teach children to masturbate.»

The pro-pedophile lobby allegedly has been around for a long time. In a U.S. News and World Report column rebuking me, John Leo recalled his own prescience in uncovering the conspiracy. «Back in 1981, an astute writer at Time magazine (that would be me) noticed that pro-pedophilia arguments were catching on among some sex researchers and counselors, [psychologist] Larry Constantine, [sex researchers] Wardell Pomeroy, and Alfred Kinsey,» he wrote, leading up to my own connections to the lobby. « Harmful to Minors has a foreword by former Surgeon General Joycelyn Elders, so don't say you weren't warned.» Washington Times writer Robert Stacy McCain contributed a catalogue of my «pedophile sources» to the Web site of Concerned Women. «Yes, Virginia,» he wrote. «There is a pedophile movement, and Judith Levine's book is part of it.»

But pedophiles and their lobbyists were not bad enough for some, so worse co-conspirators were proposed. While Reisman linked me to Hitler, a NewsCorridor columnist named Gregory J. Hand located me at the other end of the political spectrum, as a «bisexual Marxist Jewess,» apparently part of the international Jewish conspiracy that not only controls the banks and the press, but also is «promoting adult-child sex.» McCain's Concerned Women piece offered this bit of commentary: «A Google search reveals that [Levine] has described herself as a 'red-diaper baby'—that is, the child of Communist Party activists—and a socialist herself, who has written that she is 'allergic to religion.' Very interesting, but not a word of it in the New York Times or USA Today.» This revelation, along with the writer's insinuation that the press was covering it up, evoked a charming bit of nostalgia. The John Birch Society and Christian Crusade in the 1960s called the Republican Quaker founding president of SIECUS, Mary Calderone, and her colleagues «atheists» and «one-worlders,» a code word for communists. They also frequently pointed out how many sex educators and sexologists were Jews (who were also suspected of traitorous sentiments) and declared that together these people were softening up America's youth for conversion by the godless Reds. When the «red-diaper» comment came up at the end of a long phone interview, I broke the news to McCain: «I hate to tell you, Rob, but the Communist Party's position on sex was about as progressive as the Catholic Church's.»

Marginalization

The claim about Rind, Elders, SIECUS, and me is not only that we have a political agenda, but that it is a radical one held by a small minority. Even sympathetic reporters played up this alleged eccentricity. «Their theories are explosive,» read the blurb of an even-handed piece in the LA Times. « A handful of maverick[s]...» Don Feder in the Boston Herald repeated the claim that sex educators, and I as their fellow traveler (see Guilt by Association), are libertines and hedonists: «Levine thinks we interfere with the primary mission of sex educators - teaching kids that whatever feels good by definition is good.» Actually, sex-ed has always been an eminently moderate project, since its inception teaching kids to wait until marriage. Moreover, in survey after survey, upwards of 80 percent of American parents say they want comprehensive sexuality education of the kind Feder decries.

Another rhetorical tactic is to quote something that would sound reasonable to most people and call it perverted. Among «Levine's bizarre theories» that Knight kept invoking was the «theory» that children are sexual from birth and, left to their own devices, will probably engage in masturbation and sex play. This «bizarre theory» is explicitly accepted by every reputable developmental psychologist and anthropologist in the industrialized world and implicitly by most everyone else in the world.

While the object of an attack is portrayed as a wild-eyed radical, the critics are described as reasonable, and legion. «In Harmful to Minors: The Perils of Protecting Children From Sex, its author, Judith Levine, says parents should recognize their children as sexual beings and that in some instances, sex between adults and minors may actually be a good thing,» Greta Van Susteren introduced me on her show, misrepresenting the book. She added: «As you may expect this has parents around the country in a uproar.»

The «critics» also appear to be politically unaffiliated. In the New York Times , Knight was identified as a fellow of the Heritage Foundation, not as «the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank,» its own self-description. Only rarely in the scores of articles mentioning Concerned Women for America was the organization identified as it identifies itself: one that «seeks to instill Biblical principles in public policy at all levels.» During the time I was featured on CWA's home page, so was a campaign to halt the teaching of «the lie of evolution» in public schools and an indictment of the Bush Administration's «homosexual agenda,» evidenced by its hiring of a few members of the gay Log Cabin Republicans. Without such details, Concerned Women for America sounds moderate and matronly, another League of Women Voters.

The point of pushing someone to the margins is not only to discredit her in others' eyes, but to mobilize her own shame, even fear. And it works. Feeling despised as an outsider, one grasps at mainstream status.

Not married? I've been in a relationship for eleven years!

Have suspiciously short hair and don't wear skirts? My partner is a man!