Levine, Judith 1952-

views updated

Levine, Judith 1952-

PERSONAL:

Born September 20, 1952, in Queens, NY; daughter of Theodore (a psychologist) and Charlotte (an administrator) Levine; partner of Paul Cillo. Education: City College of the City University of New York, B.A. (magna cum laude), 1974; Columbia University, M.S., 1979. Politics: "Feminist, socialist." Religion: "Jewish, non-practicing." Hobbies and other interests: Bicycling, cross-country skiing, swimming, film, theater, art, birdwatching.

ADDRESSES:

Home—Brooklyn, NY, and Hardwick, VT. Agent—Diane Cleaver, 55 5th Ave., New York, NY 10003. E-mail—[email protected].

CAREER:

Writer, 1979—. Worked variously as a waitress, daycare teacher, and bike messenger, 1972-79.

MEMBER:

National Writers Union (vice president), Authors Guild, Feminist Anti-Censorship Taskforce (FACT), No More Nice Girls (founder).

AWARDS, HONORS:

Richard J. Margolis Award, 1993; Los Angeles Times Book Prize, 2002, for Harmful to Minors: The Perils of Protecting Children from Sex.

WRITINGS:

My Enemy, My Love: Man Hating and Ambivalence in Women's Lives, Doubleday (New York, NY), 1992.

Harmful to Minors: The Perils of Protecting Children from Sex, University of Minnesota Press (Minneapolis, MN), 2002.

Do You Remember Me? A Father, a Daughter, and a Search for the Self, Free Press (New York, NY), 2004.

Not Buying It: My Year without Shopping, Free Press (New York, NY), 2006.

Contributor of articles and reviews to periodicals, including Lears, Mirabella, New Woman, Philadelphia Inquirer Book Review, Village Voice, and Village Voice Literary Supplement. Contributing editor, New York Woman (magazine), 1991-92.

SIDELIGHTS:

Journalist Judith Levine's second book, Harmful to Minors: The Perils of Protecting Children from Sex, became the focus of a bitter controversy even before its publication in 2002. Levine intended the book to be a discussion about how reactionary laws and puritanical attitudes affect adolescents' development as sexual beings, but some critics branded it a rationalization for pedophilia and child molesting. The debate over the book was split along political lines, with those on the right inclined to view the book as a dangerous treatise on sexual relationships between children and adults, and those on the left, who believed it brought to light the failure of "abstinence only" sex education policies. At times, the controversy overshadowed meaningful discourse about Levine's ideas, which were controversial enough at the outset for her to have had trouble finding a publisher. Though the University of Minnesota Press agreed to publish the book, the subsequent public outcry led them to form an independent review board to greenlight all subsequent projects. This controversy in part proved Levine's thesis, which is that American culture is ruled by a "politics of fear" that prevents a substantive discussion of sexuality and minors. For this and other reasons, the book quickly became, in the words of Beth Gillin of the Philadelphia Enquirer, "the most vilified book in America."

The controversy began in earnest after an interview in which Levine, commenting on the breaking scandal in the Roman Catholic Church involving the cover-up of pedophile priests, stated that it wasn't outside the realm of possibility that a sexual relationship between a child and a priest could be a positive one. In subsequent interviews, Levine strongly asserted that priests should not have sex with children, in addition to renouncing pedophilia, rape, and other illegal sex acts. But she stood firm in her assertion that "America's drive to protect kids from sex is protecting them from nothing," as Robert Stacy McCain of Insight on the News quoted her. The timing of the book's publication, which occurred just as the scandal in the Roman Catholic Church was making headlines, was hard to overcome. "The priest scandal," wrote JoAnn Wypijewski in the Nation, "has … limited the possibilities for thoughtful discussion on the real things people do and feel, the causes and effects and complex power exchanges of a human activity that does not, and will never, operate according to the precepts of a textbook or lawbook."

Another topic in Harmful to Minors is the shifting age of consent, which in Levine's eyes is a legal construct that doesn't necessarily reflect the laws of nature. Many states determine the age of consent to be eighteen, but most European countries set it at fifteen. Either way, Levine argues, a seventeen-year-old is more sexually aware than an eight-year-old and should be treated as such, but this factor is not reflected in the law. Instead, the politics of fear come into play, and minors are bound by laws that determine that they have been victimized even if they don't see it that way. Regarding this and other ideas, John Leo of U.S. News & World Report wrote that "the real danger, [Levine] thinks, is not the pedophile, but parents and parental figures who project their fears and their own lust for young flesh onto the mythically dangerous child molester." Rebecca Winters wrote in Time that Levine "argues that adults harm children by associating sex with danger … but not acknowledging that children and teens are capable of a measure of sexual pleasure."

Critics who did not view the book through a political lens were inclined to give credence to at least some of Levine's ideas. Among them are teaching high school students about the risks of sexually transmitted diseases, various forms of contraception, and the consequences of being sexually active—ideas that are often discouraged in "abstinence only" sex education programs. Levine also argues that feelings are important to any discussion of teen sexuality, and the debate about sex education often ignores the sometimes surprising maturity some teenagers have regarding their own sexuality. The book also takes issue with dangers that are given a disproportionate amount of attention in the media. For instance, Levine cites studies that indicate child pornography on the Internet is a relatively rare occurrence, and that child molesters do not routinely prey on unsuspecting children in online chat rooms. "Her well-documented horror stories of zealotry and incompetence are chilling," wrote Martha Cornog of Library Journal, but Leo took issue with Levine's reliance on the 1998 Rind study, which was widely seen by many as being soft on child sexual abuse, and called Harmful to Minors "a classic example of how disorder in the intellectual world leaks into the popular culture."

Other reviews were more positive. Harmful to Minors presents "a good start to confronting some vital questions," wrote a critic for Publishers Weekly. Deborah Roofman of Psychology Today qualified her praise: "Levine articulately addresses the moral issues intrinsic in sexual decision-making. Yet nowhere does she offer strategies for helping children and adolescents develop skills for moral thinking." She concluded that "Levine's call for a new approach to sex education is important—but inadequate." Louise Armstrong, writing in Women's Review of Books, similarly stated that "Levine seems more enthused about the sex in sex ed than the safety," but that her "advocacy for sex education to encourage condom use, to provide reliable information on sexually transmitted diseases and the real danger of AIDS is both worthy and urgent." Wypijewski found some satisfaction in other elements of the book, concluding that "the greatest virtue in Levine's book is its hope that children might learn to find joy in the realm of the senses, the world of ideas and souls, so that when sex disappoints and love fails, as they will, a teenager, a grown-up, still has herself, and a universe of small delights and strong hearts to fall back on." Harmful to Minors won the Los Angeles Times Book Prize in 2002.

Levine's account of caring for her father after he was diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease, Do You Remember Me? A Father, a Daughter, and a Search for the Self, received laudatory reviews as an insightful, compassionate, and honest book. Though Levine had had an ambivalent relationship with her father, who had subjected her to emotional and physical abuse during her childhood, she became closer to him when she took over his care after her mother could no longer cope. As Lucille M. Boone noted in a Library Journal review, the book shows how the experience of caring for a family member with Alzheimer's sheds light on our constructions of self "in a culture that emphasizes cognition and rationality at the expense of emotions and relationships." A Publishers Weekly reviewer praised Do You Remember Me? as more than just a the story of one family's struggle with Alzheimer's but also a "searing indictment of how America treats its disabled and a cautionary tale for aging baby boomers."

In the aftermath of 9/11, when Levine found herself in debt after a bout of holiday gift shopping, she decided to give up shopping for a year. She and her partner, Paul, drew up a list of essentials such as food and other necessities that they would have to buy during the year; they designated all other items as luxuries that they would not purchase. In Not Buying It: My Year without Shopping, Levine describes what this experience was like. As she explained in an interview on the Love to Know Web site, she expected to miss buying things but "instead I longed for purchased experiences. Most of all I missed new movies and theatre." Another problem, she admitted, was boredom. Unable to use shopping as a pastime, Levine had to "just live with that feeling, which often as not, passes. Just like the impulse to buy."

Many reviewers found Not Buying It an entertaining critique of consumerism. Elizabeth L. Winter, writing in Library Journal, admired the "refreshing" self-criticism with which Levine describes the urge to shop and deemed the book a "lively [and] thoughtful look at consumerism and anti-consumerism." A writer for Kirkus Reviews noted that Levine is a "keen observer of her own emotions as well as an experienced reporter" who provides engaging accounts of Voluntary Simplicity group meetings and a Buy Nothing Day demonstration. Hailing the book as an "entertaining exploration of personal desires and needs," the critic added that it also offers "larger social and economic implications."

Reason contributor Cheryl Miller, on the other hand, felt that Not Buying It is not really about consumerist habits but about personal taste. Noting that Levine and her partner included organic gourmet coffee beans, fifty-five dollar haircuts, and ski trips as essentials, and went ahead with a 30,000-dollar renovation on their Vermont home (one of their two residences) despite their vow not to make purchases, Miller considered Levine to be less than honest in presenting her non-shopping circumstances as deprived. Moreover, "Levine claims that shopping became a less important part of her life during her experiment," wrote Miller. "Not so. For Levine, even the smallest purchase became a way of signaling who you are: … Whether she's buying organic veggies from the local co-op or her beloved SmartWool socks, Levine is constantly searching for affirmation of what a caring, enlightened person she is." A reviewer for Publishers Weekly, however, admired Levine's account of how she defined and honored her pledge to buy only necessities, concluding that the most insightful element of Not Buying It is its depiction of "the fine line between need and want."

BIOGRAPHICAL AND CRITICAL SOURCES:

PERIODICALS

Booklist, February 15, 1992, Mary Ellen Sullivan, review of My Enemy, My Love: Man Hating and Ambivalence in Women's Lives, p. 1071; February 15, 2006, Barbara Jacobs, review of Not Buying It: My Year without Shopping, p. 29.

California Bookwatch, April, 2006, review of Not Buying It.

Entertainment Weekly, March 3, 2006, Jennifer Armstrong, review of Not Buying It, p. 105.

Insight on the News, May 20, 2002, Robert Stacy McCain, "Sex Isn't Just for Adults Anymore," p. 27.

Kirkus Reviews, December 15, 2005, review of Not Buying It, p. 1313.

Library Journal, February 1, 1992, Lisa Wise, review of My Enemy, My Love, p. 114; June 1, 2002, Martha Cornog, review of Harmful to Minors: The Perils of Protecting Children from Sex, p. 176; May 1, 2004, Lucille M. Boone, review of Do You Remember Me? A Father, a Daughter, and a Search for the Self, p. 130; February 1, 2006, Elizabeth L. Winter, review of Not Buying It, p. 97.

Nation, May 20, 2002, JoAnn Wypijewski, "The Wonder Years," p. 24.

New York Times Book Review, July 5, 1992, Cyra McFadden, review of My Enemy, My Love, p. 8.

Off Our Backs, June, 1992, "Man-hating and Ambivalence in Women's Lives: An Interview with Judith Levine," p. 8.

People, March 27, 2006, "Dropping Shopping: Could You Do without Takeout? New Shoes? Mascara? Judith Levine Bought Only Necessities for a Year and Lived to Tell the Tale," p. 167.

Philadelphia Inquirer, April 16, 2002, Beth Gillin, "Book Blasted for Views on Childhood Sexuality."

Psychology Today, July-August, 2002, Deborah Roofman, "Sex: Friend or Foe?," p. 70.

Publishers Weekly, January 20, 1992, review of My Enemy, My Love, p. 53; January 18, 1993, review of My Enemy, My Love, p. 467; April 22, 2002, review of Harmful to Minors, p. 63; April 19, 2004, review of Do You Remember Me?, p. 53; January 2, 2006, review of Not Buying It, p. 48.

Reason, August 1, 2006, Cheryl Miller, "Shopping for Me, but Not for Thee: The Complications of Voluntary Simplicity," p. 61.

Reference & Research Book News, August, 2004, review of Do You Remember Me?, p. 150.

Time, April 15, 2002, Rebecca Winters, "Child Sexuality: Challenging the Taboos," p. 22.

U.S. News & World Report, April 22, 2002, John Leo, "Apologists for Pedophilia," p. 53.

Whole Life Times, May 1, 2007, Paul Constant, review of Not Buying It, p. 54.

Women's Review of Books, May 1, 1992, Eunice Lipton, review of My Enemy, My Love, p. 16; June 1, 2002, Louise Armstrong, "Wishful Thinking," pp.1-3.