Pitches, Redux

To the Editors of The Crimson:

I am writing in response to Carolyn Greaves and Allison Rader's letter of April 29, 1987, in defense not only of the Pitches, but also of the larger picture of female liberation and male-female relations embodied in the work and career of Annie Lennox of Eurythmics, who sings "Right By Your Side", the offending song. Although the Pitches clearly did not make a very strategic selection, Greaves and Rader deprive the lines they find offensive from any context in the song or Lennox's body of work as a whole, offering a distorted account of what this song means. Not surprisingly, after caricaturing the view, Greaves and Rader reject it as politically unpalatable, not stopping to consider whether any feminist perspective other than their own might have some value.

The picture of femininity Greaves and Rader offer up to us is, ironically, the very patriarchal male ideal they claim to reject--always strong, independent, needing no one. Greaves and Rader have bought the dominatnt culture's male ethic wholesale, asking for nothing more than a chance for women to become what men have always been told to be. In fact, true liberation for women and men will only be a reality when all of us realize that the whole, healthy human person is able to need and be needed without becoming either an oppressor or the forgotten and self-effeacing non-entity Greaves and Rader rightly decry. The paranoid fear of weakness of any kind, of an expression of need or dependence in any aspect of of life, is the shameful and destructive inheritance of our male-dominated history. There are many traits traditionally considered "feminine" (or more pejoratively still, "effeminate"), and evaluated negatively, but the solution to this may not be for women to reject these traits in favor of positively-evaluated traditionally "masculine" ones. Instead, we need to bring about a radical re-evaluation of all traits, approval and disapproval latent in classifying traits as "masculine" and "feminine."

It has been argued to me that given the theme of the rally--the solidarity and empowerment of women--such a song choice was inappropriate on its face. That may be right, and our difficulty in coming up with a more appropriate song only reflects the poverty of positive images of women in popular musical culture. In light of this, Greaves and Rader's implicit condemnation of Annie Lennox is particularly wrong-headed. Lennox may sing love songs that express emotions Greaves and Rader find unacceptable, but she also co-wrote and recorded, with Aretha Franklin, "Sisters Are Doin' It For Themselves", arguably the most straightforwardly feminist manistream pop song ever. In public appearances Lennox constantly challenges accepted gender norms. The point should be obvious: Lennox is succeeding in the male-dominated world of popular music without becoming a sex kitten, without exploiting her stunning good looks, without mouthing submissive lines put in her mouth by others. She is a talented, strong and competent woman and, unlike Greaves and Rader, she is willing to express the occasional and very human desires for protection and even overpowering love as a legitimate part of herself.

As for receiving "so much love that I forget myself" perhaps for Greaves and Rader the ideal romantic relationship is one characterized by self-love and continuous concern only for oneself. This seems to me hardly the picture of a healthy relationship; on my view, love begins at the moment when the well-being of the other becomes an independent value. This is certainly a form of "forgetting" oneself, but in no way a vicious one. Only through this sort of "forgetfulness" is it possible to be conscious of others in the most profoundly empathetic way, and this deep connection is completely in keeping with the spirit of the rally. Genuine respect for the freedom and dignity of others may find its starting place in this sort of selfless love, experienced by most of us for the first time from our parents. So-called "empowerment" is not the only value worth advancing.

On the other hand, the idea that violence against women is a form of "forgetting" is quite a claim to make with any argument. Greaves and Rader argue that romantic self-effacement "is systematically linked" to the violation of a woman who is raped, because "both are results of a culture which condones the subjugation of women." Exactly what systematic link is being postulated here? A causal one? Surely they don't mean to say that women who "forget themselves" romantically are more likely to be raped or harassed. The continuing violence against women indicates--among other things--an irrational fear of powerful women, an obsession with this subject, a fear which is constantly felt and must just as constantly be escaped by expressions of power over women and female children. Men are encouraged to act out this hostility, not to come to grips with it. This is an appalling state of affairs and is hardly the product of love of any kind. Again, what is needed is a reinterpretation of human development, without the oppressive chains of ironclad gender roles.

I certainly and wholeheartedly support the goal of "Take Back the Night" in ending violence against women. So long as women are victimized, we do not live in a society which respects the freedom and equality of the human person. However, the most desirable mode of relations between women and men is by no means clear, and Greaves and Rader do not contribute constructively to this debate with their lopsided overreaction. Diane J. Klein '87