Read my latest flash, Venison, at 52|250.

It can be fun to talk in terms of high theory about whether the author matters or to go back and forth about the appropriateness of interpreting words on the basis of external biographical information. Whole nights can disappear into discussions of ideals. If we stick to poetry in these poetry-marginalizing days, we can even pretend that no one gets hurt (except perhaps the poets).

Sometimes, however, this discussion takes on a heavy public relevance. Is the value of rhetoric about hope and change altered when it is penned by a man who thinks that mimicking sexual assault against a woman is hilarious? It may be impossible to know exactly how much of the hope-and-change talk in Obama’s campaign speeches came from Jon Favreau and how much came from other staff or from the candidate himself. Given, however, that Obama has shown no indication that he is going to fire Favreau from his new position as White House director of speechwriting, I’m not sure it matters very much.

When men who think this behavior is acceptable speak about change and hope, those words have limited meanings. “Hope” excludes the right of women to hope to be seen as equals and to see a reduction in sexualized degradations. “Change” excludes any alteration in the situation of women in this country and around the world who face street harassment and the threat of sexualized violence.

What Favreau did was not as bad as raping a real woman, obviously. The trouble is that it contributes to a culture that allows men to rape. Whatever writers like Anne Schroeder Mullins of the Politico may think, that is not “a minor offense” and apologizing privately to Clinton does nothing to change it.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.