RJ Reads (Reproductive Justice Book Club) discussion

Let me begin by saying that I loved this book. It took me forever to read it (compared to how quickly I tend to read books) because I didn't want it to end. I've even nominated it for my IRL feminist book club, so thanks to whoever suggested it. :)

That said, I wanted to start a general discussion among this group of progressively-minded gals, because I feel like this happens to me a lot: while reading a book I adore, particularly historical fiction, I'll find myself squirming and angry over the author's use of racist language and epithets, despite their supposed historical accuracy. I recognize that I am a sensitive poet and also the most humorless feminist in all of nofunnington (h/t shakesville), but I can't be the only one wondering: why do authors feel compelled to include these tidbits when they add nothing to the story?

In this book, for example, there are repeated uses of the word "darkies," referring to Black New Yorkers and Black Americans. There is also an awful account of riots against Blacks who were at that time exempt from the draft (and accusations of starting/perpetuating these riots against the main character's husband, which are never actually resolved or really addressed). It felt like a blight on the novel, a story which was not at all enhanced by these instances. Not every book has to end with rainbows and world peace, of course, but I shouldn't have to feel reluctant to recommend an excellent novel because of the way I feel slapped in the face by these handfuls of hateful words on a handful of pages.

I've had similar complaints about authors and books on other topics -- for example, all the vegan feminists in the world love Carol J. Adams ("The Sexual Politics of Meat") but I am completely turned off by the transphobia of her particular brand of feminism -- but I'm honestly disquieted by these things, not just trying to pick fights. Am I alone in my principles? (Oh, there he goes, off to his room to write that hit song, "Alone in My Principles.")

I will never, ever share with anybody the deeply embarrassing fictionalized diary of a slave I wrote as an assignment in middle school. Let's just say I wrote it not long after reading Gone with the Wind. Sometimes I'll just be, like, standing on the streetcorner buying a banana and I'll cringe thinking about it.

I like to tell myself that the discomfort/revulsion is part of what you are supposed to experience. That the point of historical fiction is not just to live the life of the protagonist for a little while, but to form a perspective on the time period itself, blatant epithets and all, and hold a mirror to the present day. Although of course there is a difference between harms that are actually ongoing to the present day and historical travesties like complete lack of public health or social infrastructure for the poor in NYC leading to unlivable squalor. We run the risk of putting things like racism in the category of historical along with the fiction. That is truly terrifying.

I don't know, though, whether this is me being overly charitable, and for the authors it is just about "how people talked back then." Is this a situation where intent matters? Or are we again in the too-familiar world of white people needing to find a way to use the n-word, goddamit!

I feel less strongly about really offensive epithets in a novel than I do about less blatant but insidious -isms in a treatise (haven't read Adams, but feel similarly about Inga Muscio). Maybe it's because I see the former as a "what not to do," and the latter as fucked up "what to do," which feels more dangerous.

Either way, it's an interesting question worth exploring and I hope others will weigh in!

(also, I appreciate anyone who can quote TTYD - just this morning, I was asking Adrian "I wonder what happened to the Oneders?")

I wonder why words like bastard are represented as b******d etc and the words describing African Americans were not similarly represented.

I'm still slogging through the book; about 2/3 of the way. For me, I was struck by that section of the book describing something I didn't know -- I never learned that racial AND class divides were an issue in Civil War draft practices. I think I focused more on reflecting why I didn't know that than how it was written.

I agree it was a brief, unconnected piece of the overall story. As offensive as terms like 'darkie' etc to describe African Americans, there were also derogatory terms about the Irish, Italians, etc. used until those groups became 'white'...

Like Farah, I think what happened then is still happening today, different forms, etc. What we call things may be less objectionable than what we do.

my late night ramblings and contributions.

Farah, I similarly wince when I think about middle school Jenna responding to the question of, "What race are you?" with "HUMAN RACE!" Sigh. Misguided little fledgling social justice activist! At least we grew out of it... ?

Christine, I thought the censorship of certain words was also really interesting. The introduction to the book states that the pages of the story were supposedly unearthed in Madame X's diary, so I wonder if it was she who censored her own words? (She went so far as to mask the word "pregnancy" at one point!) Along the lines of what Farah said, it may be that we're supposed to raise our eyebrows at the fact that "pregnancy" and "menses" were considered taboo while "darkies" is not.

But I'm still grumpy about Charlie's incarceration for a hot minute over supposedly burning down a Black orphanage and the complete lack of resolution of that whole chunk of the story.

As a children's librarian I find myself defending racial slurs and epithets in historical fiction a lot to angry parents.

Racial slurs in historical fiction add to the accuracy of the story and while they may have no direct bearing on a story, they are telling us important things about the past that shouldn't be forgotten. To not include them, to me at least, comes across as trying to hide a piece of history which I find dangerous. It's important to remember where we're coming from so that we know how much further we need to go; those who don't remember their history are doomed to repeat it, etc, etc.

I felt like the inclusion of the racial terms and the censoring of all the terms relating to female reproduction was an interesting juxtaposition, and like Jenna I think it was supposed to make us double take.

Thanks Rosa for putting my thoughts into words. I agree with you. I also wish to point out that this book was stylized as someone's diary of life in the late 1800's and then written in the very early 1900's. That was the Victorian Era and anything dealing with the body or sex was a major no-no to mention in polite company. Heck, people covered their piano legs for modesty. So, I would think that was why the character's husband x'd out those particular words. And sorry to say, at that time that term for black people/African-Americans, was the word that was used commonly and not seen as a problem. This novel gave us a glimpse into life as it was, in the not so distant past, which if we are not careful, could become life in the not too distant future.

Loving this discussion! So thoughtful and enlightening. Thanks everyone. :)

Finally finished the book! I found Axie both inspiring and frustrating. I wish she would've gotten organized! But that would be a different book. It really made me appreciate how far we've come, but also how far we still have to go.