Harriet Jacobs of Fugitivus writes very powerfully about extracting herself from a very deeply-ingrained local culture of abuse. Parental abuse. Sexual abuse. Partner abuse. Often intertwined with drug abuse and alcohol abuse. She now works in or around the field of social services related to family and child courts. (I’m trying to be even more vague about what she does than she tries to be.)
Wow. She’s some writer. With some past. And some really great insights about it. And she’s got what sounds like an awesomely insider job in an area of law and society that very much needs to be better understood. And she writes very well about that too.
While there’s an excellent chance I’m the only one who wasn’t already reading her a quick Google search doesn’t turn up that many references to her. Which is a shame. As I said she has sometimes chillingly important things to say. For those likely to be triggered by any manner of abuse at all her topics are all pretty much triggering.
An example of something triggering would be the following quote about the (internal) logic of abusive relationships in the context of perilous/subsistence social situations… made even more trigger-y by the circumstances her abusive relationship made it possible to avoid! (Emphasis hers.)
I’ve said this before, but I never really applied it to my own life. Sometimes, the reason women stay with abusive men is because they assume they will always be abused, and they’re choosing their abuser. I am certain, had I been single, Nero would’ve made a move on me. And without the omnipresent threat of stealing another man’s girl, he might’ve felt perfectly safe about raping me. I don’t have any doubt that the other boys would’ve told me it wasn’t rape, which would’ve been part of Nero’s sense of safety. Granted, the only reason I was in a social group like that was because of my association with Flint, but being surrounded by people of his choosing did exactly what he wanted it to: It made me choose him as the best alternative. For a few years, I was surrounded by completely amoral drug addicts and rapists/rape-apologists. And I assumed everybody was like that, once you got to know them enough; after all, I’d seen the boys act decent and human in front of new women. That’s a dangerous place to be, and since I wasn’t yet together enough to realize “I don’t have to hang out with these fuckwits,” the second best solution was to find some way to protect myself from all of them by choosing one of them. Letting Flint rape me was insurance against anybody else doing it.
That resonates very seriously for me, though obviously from a slightly different perspective. The kinds of people she describes hanging around with, and for that matter being, sound so similar to the people I hung around with during my transition from homelessness into mere desperately marginality. A life where “good guys” only sold or used pot, coke, alcohol and maybe occasionally non-meth speed while “bad guys” sold coke, pot, tranquilizers, and more-directly addictive “hard stuff.” A life where “up and out” meant “working my way up” into a “Clerks” like assistant manager position in an exurban fast-food joint with only the most peripheral contact with my former friends. And “friends.” And before moving away completely to the Northwest where I discovered college, real friends (including many of my old, true friends), work, life, health, and eventually love and family.
In other words, while my situation was nowhere near as dire as Jacobs I completely recognize the logic that comes from the realization that “I don’t have to hang out with these fuckwits.” Instead inside that culture being a “good guy” means hanging out with the good drug dealers and good crooked cops who don’t beat up their girlfriends and who think it’s “bad form” to have sex with women who’ve passed out. The way “those losers” do.
Sigh. There’s a lot more at her blog. Not just about the downsides but about how to deal with the downsides. But from within and, once out, from without.
Jacobs has just taken a new job, an important one, that requires a great deal more circumspection in her blogging, and which takes up more of her time and energy. So who knows if she’ll continue writing the way she has been. That said she’s got a couple of very powerful new pieces. For instance one about how society, personality, and personal circumstance conspires with the law to constrain reproductive choice for the very young and very vulnerable even more than you think it does. And another about how one very anonymous department of a very-deliberately not-identified administrative entity helps getting judicial waivers of parent-notification requirements merely difficult in a system that’s otherwise not really well-designed to give them at all.




Do you and other bloggers who
Submitted by Redleader (not verified) on Fri, 2010-02-05 21:08.Do you and other bloggers who talk about Harriet Jacobs as if she was a contemporary activists and truly expect your readers not to know who she is and that her working years ended long before Al Gore invented the internet let alone the blogosphere. Like a century before?
[I should have said something about that. She addresses it in item #3 of her About page.
So not so much an excuse as an explanation. I probably wouldn’t have named myself “figleaf” if I’d known I’d still be doing this seven or eight years later (counting our old Utne Reader haunts.) I mean, it works out pretty well but it was a total whim. Now where I ought to be embarrassed is that I didn’t make the connection with her pseudonym and her namesake. Thanks, Redleader. —fl]
To me calling oneself
Submitted by Red (not verified) on Sat, 2010-02-06 15:50. To me calling oneself “Harriet Jacobs” or any other such historical figure (Abraham Lincoln, Winston Churchill, Susan B. Anthony, TE Lawrence, Frederick Douglas, Oliver Cromwell, William Wilberforce, Patrice Lumumba, Jawaharlal Nehru, Douglas Patton etc.) is at best in poor taste. I wouldn’t consider “Figleaf” to be in poor taste at all. For a high brow sex blog, I’d consider the name (anonymous but not pornographic) to be reasonably tasteful. In my mind the issue with calling herself “Harriet Jacobs” online has little to do with the fact she’s a “white” woman per se. And a lot to do with taking on the identity of a known historical figure (unless maybe your parents saddled you with that name to begin with). For one thing aren’t there more than enough apocryphal quotes attributed to everyone from Jesus Christ to Winston Churchill to begin with? When I first saw you talking about things written by Harriet Jacobs, I assumed that you were talking about the original one, and read it thinking “Wow this is such modern thinking for a 19th century abolitionist.” but when it started talking about Harriet Jacobs having a new job and a blog, I was thoroughly confused as to what was going on. And considering how the part one in this “about the blog” gave that whole disclaimer of “I know I can only speak from the perspective of a middle class white woman, and try not to talk about any other experience.” It’s a POV I don’t really agree with, but found it made her choice of name even more ironic!! The combination really doesn’t do anything good for the credibility of the blog at all.