• Published on

    A History of a Pedophile's Wife: A Highly Personal Reaction

    Image description
    ​“How could a mother NOT know that her child was being sexually abused in the home?”
     
    I’ve asked that. But it was never a real question. I was always sure I knew the answer: “She couldn’t.” In other words, guilty.  Because any mother who was so indifferent or oblivious to the signs and syndromes of her victimized children and/or the inevitable trail of clues from the perpetrating partner should be found guilty of criminal negligence… right?   And then, of course, if the mom did know… well, lock her up as an accomplice.
     
    When I asked that question, what I was really saying was, “How could my mother not have known?” As a child, I was a bundle of behaviors, from food refusal to self-mutilation. My father had a disgusting collection of pornography, which included torture pornography. He was compulsively adulterous, even taking a date to an office party when my mother (his wife) was in the hospital giving birth. He was violent, forcing sex on her immediately after an episiotomy. He was cruel to animals and a bully to children. I was completely terrified of him. How could she not have known?
    Image description
    ​Self-righteousness is the pendulum swing to the far side of shame. Both emotions carry sweeping indictments. With shame it’s a personal indictment. With self-righteousness, someone else is guilty. Both engage black-and-white thinking. Both have a tendency to flash-freeze an experience and prevent growth or movement forward. Both are motivated by a desire to protect. In the case of shame, the desire to protect the perpetrator(s) has become internalized. This brainwashing has been part of the perpetration.  In the case of self-righteousness, we are protecting ourselves from blame.
     
    For the first three decades of my life, I experienced a great deal of shame and confusion… from the trauma, but also from the complex PTSD that pervaded my young adult years. It was a great relief when I became politically aware of the oppression of women, because it enabled my swing over to self-righteousness. Still stuck, still rigid, but at least not at fault anymore. My new mantra became:  “How could a mother not know that her child was being sexually abused.”
     
    So, here comes this book that takes my question more literally than I ever did. A History of a Pedophile’s Wife is a page-turner memoir by Canadian feminist Eleanor Cowan, describing the toxic landscape of her family life in the twentieth century, surrounded by secrets and patriarchal theology and institutions. Reading Cowan’s book, the question in my own mind began to morph into “How could my mother have known?” 
    Image description
    ​My own mother would never admit the truth about her first husband or about my experience. At one time, when I was asking her about the nature of the pornography collection, she became uncharacteristically emotional and said, “You don’t what you’re asking me to do! You don’t know what you’re asking me to open the door on!”
     

    Following Cowan’s journey, I had many occasions for remembering those words. The perpetration I experienced was probably the tip of an iceberg. My mother, a lifelong practicing alcoholic, had protected her marriage in so many arenas, hiding her drinking, hiding his philandering, standing by him in political scandals, making up excuses for her bruises, rationalizing the chronic emotional abuse …  I really have no idea what was behind that door she was so afraid to open. And I have no idea what that avalanche of truth might do to her. She knew the answer to both when she begged me to drop the subject.
     
    The author of A History of a Pedophile’s Wife  has the courage my mother lacked. She does open the door, and there is an avalanche. And she shares it in compelling detail. 
    Image description
     New question: “Why are some mothers able to open that door, while others cannot?” One of the answers is “support.” Cowan’s journey led out of the 1950’s into the explosion of feminist consciousness characterized by the  1960’s and the 1970’s. Women were telling the truth, naming the real perpetrators instead of policing each other. Social services were being provided for battered women and rape victims. Birth control happened. Divorce began to lose its stigma. Health care providers began to break their silence. Mandatory reporting became law.
     
    Cowan found something else: a group called Parents of Sexually Abused Children. The attrition rate was very high, but those who stayed learned how to shatter the silence about family secrets. In this group, the author lost her shame, found her voice, took ownership of her experience, became accountable to her children… and shared the story.
     
    My own mother went to her grave with her secrets, and the best I could do was to manage a diffident wave “good-bye” across the enormous gulf of denial that separated us. No closure, I thought. But actually I did get closure, and I got it from A History of a Pedophile’s Wife. I saw the parallel universe, the alternate reality, and I think that has healed me a little.
     
    So, with that, I recommend this memoir to survivors, to mothers who failed to protect, to providers working with trauma patients, and to survivors of religious abuse… especially those whose trauma was perpetrated or enabled by Catholic teachings and institutions. Also a great read for anyone who appreciates a courageous and dramatic memoir!
  • Published on

    Suffragette: The After-Story

    Picture
    I just went to see Suffragette, the period drama about the militant phase of the British Suffrage Movement, and, of course, I wanted to share my thoughts.
     
    First, there is a justified viral campaign to protest the complete—and I mean complete—absence of persons of color in the film. In 1913, Britain was coming out of their heyday of global colonization, and, as a result, there were entire communities of color in London. There was an especially large Indian community, including the Indian princess Sophia Duleep Singh, who fought not only for women’s suffrage but for the liberation of Indian women.  It is interesting to note that three decades earlier, a suffragist named Catherine Impey founded Anti-Caste, which has been described as Britain’s first anti-racist journal. In its pages, the editor attempted to speak “with” rather than “about” people of colour, a dynamic with which white political leaders are still struggling more than a century later.
    Image description
    Anyway… with all the attention to historical accuracy about the details of women's tailoring, and with all the photo ops of processions, meetings, rallies, factory interiors, and street scenes… surely central casting could have and should have paid more attention to diversity.
     
    So there is that.
     
    And then, of course, the perennial absence/closeting of the lesbians. Not surprisingly, there were many lesbians in the Suffrage Movement in both England and the US. One of Emmeline Pankhurst’s daughters, Christabel, was the subject of many suffragist crushes, and had lengthy relationships with Annie Kenney and with Grace Roe. The composer Ethel Smyth dedicated two years of her life to the movement. She wrote openly about her passion for women and had a crush on Emmeline Pankhurst. (See my blog on Ethel Symth.)
    Image description
    But in spite of the a-historical absence of diversity in the film, there is much to admire. It features a working-class heroine. It does not flinch from the subject of rape and sexual harassment in the workplace in an era when women had no legal recourse whatsoever. It dramatizes the consequences of women having no rights of ownership over their own children. The central character is evicted from her home because of her activism, and then her husband, unable to provide care for the child, puts him up for adoption without her knowledge or permission.
     
    For me, the most exciting part of the film is the coming to consciousness of the central character. We see her waking up from a deep sleep. We see her beginning to see what could be possible. We see her excitement in bonding with other women and in executing acts of civil disobediance—most notably blowing up the Prime Minister’s summer home.
    Image description
    And, then of course, there is the punishing routine of repeated incarceration, the police violence meted out at rallies, the horror of the force-feeding of hunger strikers. In an effort to shape a concise dramatic arc, the film begins to focus on a cat-and-mouse dynamic between the heroine and the police inspector assigned to neutralize the movement. He has been given the injunction not to allow any of the suffragists to become martyrs.
     
    The dramatic climax of the film is the death of Emily Wilding Davison, the suffragist who ran onto the race track at the Epsom Derby and attempted to attach a “Votes for Women” banner to the King’s horse. She was trampled to death.
    Image description
    The film ends with the “victory” of the Suffragists having achieved the desired martyrdom. The story went around the world and thousands turned out for the funeral procession. This is presented as the happy ending for the film, the moment that turned the tide. Just before the final credits, text appears to inform us of the historical timeline for women’s suffrage, and for other laws, including women's right to own their children.
     
    But here's my biggest concern: The film absolutely implies that the women’s activism, and especially their tactical move to destruction of property, resulted in the granting of suffrage.
    Image description
    This is not true. At the height of the incarcerations and force-feedings, World War I broke out. In what many, including myself, considered a stunning betrayal of not just the suffrage movement, but of feminism, Emmeline and Christabel called an immediate halt to all militant suffrage activism. Emmeline turned her brilliant organizing skills toward recruiting women for industrial production and encouraging young men to enlist. She was a prominent figure in the “white feather campaign” to shame and stigmatize able-bodied men who were not joining up. Later on, she would become a member of the conservative and classist Tory Party.
     
    Finally, at the end of the war, Parliament passed an act that would enfranchise women over the age of thirty who met minimum property qualifications. This was specifically in recognition of the fact that women had been pressured into filling men’s industrial jobs during the war and, after that, it would have been ludicrous to maintain the fiction that they were too frail or feeble-minded to be entrusted with suffrage. It was their reward for doing as they were told.
    Image description
    What is my point? My point is that history does not support the theory that women’s escalating activism for the vote brought men in power to their knees. It did not. Women’s abandonment of their own agenda and participation the most patriarchal of patriarchal horrors was what turned the tide.
     
    My point is that women’s movements do not follow the same trajectories as men’s movements. If there were no gay men, and the entire queer movement had been composed solely of lesbian and bisexual women, I do not believe that we would have ANY of the legal gains that we have today. In fact, I believe that the movement, as with the Suffrage Movement in both England and the US, would have resulted in increased marginalization and suffering.  Today we are seeing our hard-won abortion rights being eroded by cat-and-mouse games. Today, poor women in some areas have great difficulty in arranging for abortions, because of laws about waiting periods, restrictions on where abortion clinics can operate, and the expenses that these new laws entail.
    Image description
    My point is that lobbying men should be a last resort. We should organize ourselves around efforts to provide for our needs without needing to petition men in power. By all means, get women elected into as many positions as possible, but the rush for equal participation in patriarchal institutions is what led to Pankhurst’s abandonment of the movement.
     
    And, much as the movement recognized the significance of having a martyr, Emily Wilding Davison died with a ticket in her pocket to a women’s dance that night. She did not plan to martyr herself, but to celebrate her victory in the company of women. That is the movement I want to commemorate.
    Picture