Вредно для несовершеннолетних [Джудит Левин] (fb2) читать постранично, страница - 156

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 & 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. Voilà, 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 & 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