View the H-Histsex Discussion Logs by month
View the Prior Message in H-Histsex's August 2011 logs by: [date] [author] [thread]
View the Next Message in H-Histsex's August 2011 logs by: [date] [author] [thread]
Visit the H-Histsex home page.
Sent: 30 August 2011 23:49 It is quite possible that the language you refer to was required by Times editors in order to get this piece published. If I attempt, in a parallel case, to write in a mainstream publication about the sex industry or migrants who sell sex _without_ making a pious statement opposing child prostitution and slavery, I won't be published. This syndrome is well-known by those working in ngos as well - even if their experience is 100% with, for example, teenage runaways who don't want to go home, and that is who they want to talk about, they are required to make a disclaimer about being opposed to child prostitution, pedophilia and so on. Laura http://www.lauraagustin.com El Mar, 30 de Agosto de 2011, 12:57, Hera Cook escribió: > ________________________________________ > From: David Sonenschein [firstname.lastname@example.org] > Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 3:53 AM > Laura Agustin is correct in calling our attention to Professor Roger > Lancaster's August 21 opinion piece in the New York Times. Such views are > still historically rare at the level of popular consciousness as the > hysterical mentality continues to hold firmly to its myths and > suppressions. The very few liberal academics who feel an unease almost > entirely confine their critiques to their own insulated world with little > effect beyond adding another quarter inch to one's CV. Lancaster has, > rather courageously, chosen to extend the criticism to a mass audience. > > As an example, the Sex Offender Registry in Texas is notoriously befouled > by zealousness and contaminated by massive errors. An editorial in our > local (Hearst) newspaper tried to appear reformist by making a call that > only the truly guilty be placed on the rolls. I wrote a critical response > which they refused to print, and within a couple of days featured a > commentary by a local child service agency urging the villagers to > "battle sex abuse" by, among other things, believing a child > unconditionally, by watching for signs of "abuse", and by reporting any > and all suspicions to the authorities. > > For many of us on HistSex, however, Lancaster's points are hardly new, and > for some of us his approach in its bow to conventionality is severely > disappointing. Without nit-picking his whole article, I am distressed by > Professor Lancaster's language. As a fellow anthropologist, he should show > more consciousness of this. He refers to "perpetrators of sexual abuse," > and states that "No one can doubt that child sexual abuse is traumatic and > devastating." Aside from the fact that there are considerable doubts about > this, this is the language of the "loyal opposition," speaking of > efficiency, of technological and bureaucratic expertise rather than a > critique of basic scientific and ideological issues (the Australian > situation reported by Gavriel Ansara points to this). He buys into the > rhetoric of the hysteria and actually reinforces the very panic he appears > to criticize. Adding the weight of his institutional power base to his > remarks fortifies the conventional view against authentic critiques. > > I look forward to reading his latest book and comparing it to other > liberal reviews; I hope it will have much to offer in making some kind of > scientific and humane progress in all this. His review of the issues, > though basically unconfronted, are valid. Most troubling is the spread of > "indefinite detention" powers. I noted long ago (1987, J Sex Res) that > police in many jurisdictions keep lists of suspected "pedophiles" and at > least in the 1980s some prosecutors attempted to pass laws authorizing > their apprehension and detention solely on the basis of being on the list. > I myself, due to my (admittedly provocative) activism, have been reported > to the police by a young and under-educated social worker as a "pedophile" > and have subject to entrapment attempts and surveillance. Professor > Lancaster seems above this (so far), and I hope he continues to develop > his views. > > David Sonenschein > Independent Scholar > email@example.com > >