by Bev Jafek
For the Donana section, I used Juan Antonio Fernandez’ brilliant photo essay, Donana: Spain’s Wildlife Wilderness. Both a poet and a scientist, he was often my eyes and ears in Donana. The first two sections, Patagonia and Donana, were relatively easy, then, to research. Then I turned to the rest of Spain, the only country I had actually visited; which, contrary to expectation, was virtually impossible to research for its relative lack of information on, and interest in, women. Fortunately, however, I am always very interested in projects that seem impossible to execute, and exploring and unveiling macho Spain in terms of women fascinated me.
I began with several of the most famous books: James Michener’s Iberia; George Orwell’s Homage to Catalonia; and Hemingway’s For Whom the Bell Tolls as well as The Sun Also Rises, only to discover that they all had so drastically left out the experience of women that they were both unusable and of highly questionable validity as portraits of Spain. They are romanticized descriptions of the contributions of men. From Michener’s 900-some pages, I only got a description of an Andalusian romeria at which a male friend promised Michener “the real flamenco” of the gypsies. At this performance, the first gypsy singer was a woman who ran on stage yelling, “I’ve got ten times the balls of any man here!” and began singing throatily to a shocked and fascinated audience. Michener left immediately in disgust, convinced that this could not be the real flamenco. I, on the other hand, immediately recognized it as authentic, the flamenco I had heard in Spain; and this one fact was the germ of my character, Pilar the gypsy and her mother, the flamenco singer, Malena the Singing Beast.
So, I knew that such a woman did exist. Now, I had to find her. Giles Tremlett’s leisurely book, Ghosts of Spain: Travels through Spain and its Silent Past, provided me with a walk through the gypsy tenement village that is responsible for Spain’s best flamenco singers, Los Tres Mil Viviendas, though Tremlett was going in search of “the real flamenco” in a male singer, and I was looking for the home of a female singer. I had to do this kind of thing in most of my research. The author was interested primarily in men in a certain environment; I was looking for women, since they lived there, too. In this way, the impossible became increasingly possible.
Tremlett’s book also provided me with a description of a Spanish industrial park style brothel; they are in fact numerous in the countryside. I used it, of course, in the novel’s climax, Pilar’s Gay Pride Day stunt.
John Hooper’s The New Spaniards displayed the sharpest analytical powers of any book on Spain that I read, and the women who meet in Monserrat’s house in Barcelona would have had much less to discuss and debate without it, though I knew much of the quality of their interaction from my own experience, seeing the birth of the women’s rights movement and the gay liberation movement first hand in many cosmopolitan cities, both in the US and abroad. A nascent feminist movement is something of which I’ve always been an intimate part. Feminist academics gave me most of the rest, since their books were devoted to the study of Spanish women, and they were limited only by academic language. Free Women of Spain: Anarchism and the Struggle for the Emancipation of Women (Indiana University Press) by Martha A. Ackelsberg gave me the history of Mujeres Libres and my translation of their original anthem song, which Alex quotes. Stories from Spain by Genevieve Barlow and William N. Stivers gave me my Spanish folk tales about women that are mentioned in one of the “mother stories” told by the women of Barcelona over several nights in Monserrat’s house. The poetry quoted one night by Alex for the Mujeres Libres’ section of the house’s web site and in a later scene with Sylvie was all written by Gloria Fuertes, probably the most famous female poet in Spain during the twentieth century. I used four complete poems translated by Philip Levine, another complete poem translated by Robert Mezey, and one from John Haines. They all appear in Roots and Wings: Poetry from Spain 1900-1975, edited by Hardie St. Martin and published by White Pines Press. I am grateful for permission to reprint them. Gloria Fuertes’ poetry was one of the most delightful discoveries of my research, and I urge all poetry lovers to read her work in translation or in Spanish.
The most important and relevant book I read in all my research, however, was Prison of Women: Testimonies of War and Resistance in Spain, 1939-1975, gathered by Tomas Cuevas and translated and edited by Dr. Mary E. Giles, a Professor of the Humanities at California State University. The “mother stories” involving the Spanish Civil War from women at Monserrat’s house are all based on fact, stories recorded in this book; each of these narratives really happened to a Spanish woman during the war, though I have changed names and some details to protect the privacy of these courageous women. I have tried to preserve some of the style of speech in these stories. If you remember nothing else from my book, remember the name of Tomas Cuevas, the greatest unknown heroine of the Spanish Civil War. The city of Barcelona should erect a statue of her: the story of her wartime activities is most arduous and courageous of all and lasted until the death of Franco. It involved more self-sacrifice and heroism than any other freedom fighter in Spain. Her gift to Spain continues into the present, since her book details the stories of the women resistance fighters who eventually ended up in prisons where they were tortured and starved; but nonetheless, bonded together strongly and never lost hope. Mary Giles is a heroine, too, for finding Cuevas’ book accidentally and fortuitously in a Spanish bookstore and translating it for English readers. I don’t think this information is widely known in Spain, Europe or the US. It contradicts Orwell’s account, which presents men heroically but only allows women to pass briefly through the narrative. Cuevas’ women all clearly say that the men who were in the War’s resistance fought fascists by day and returned home at night to act like fascists with their families. And, their wartime heroism was equaled by the participation of women. You will not find that in the ”famous” books on Spain, not in Michener, Orwell or Hemingway.
Monserrat’s theory on Spanish art occurred to me as I read a very simple history of Spain entitled, Spain: A History in Art by Bradley Smith. I have no idea whether it is original. The Neolithic caves in Spain with matriarchal imagery, particularly to the south, actually do exist and their locations and my descriptions of them are factual and can be found in Smith’s book.
Ruth’s theory has many parts and a much more complex history. I first read about the scientific studies of women’s sexuality in a cover story in the Sunday New York Times Magazine many years ago, probably 2005. An Internet article from the New York Times of July 5, 2005 mentioned that there are two academic departments involved in it, psychologists at Northwestern University in Illinois and the Center for Addiction and Mental Health in Toronto, Canada. These authors seemed very much aware of the chimp and bonobo connection. Wikipedia has entries about this research as well as many studies of chimps and bonobos. Ruth would have known about this research, since the events of the novel occur between 2004 and 2007.
I first read about the genetic basis of the tendency to be politically conservative or liberal in a Tuesday “Science Times’ Section of the New York Times. The relationship of this to our ape origin in chimps and bonobos is a belief I’ve held since I first read about the group dynamics of bonobos decades ago, so it can be the theory of Ruth. However, it is consistent with the arguments of Franz de Waals in his books on bonobos, Our Inner Ape (2008), and later books of his such as The Age of Empathy: Nature’s Lessons for a Kinder Society. In very briefly cruising the web, I discovered that a great many people whose work lies in the creation of ideas (a primatologist, a technology entrepreneur, and myself, a novelist) have all been struck by the difference between these two chimp species and its probable relation to human political parties. If I had spent more time, I would have found many others, I’m sure. The current Wikipedia commentary on this, however, shows that it is no longer speculation, but the work of brain scientists (who have found brain differences between liberals and conservatives) and geneticists who have identified some of the genes that predict political orientatio
n.
The information about gays and lesbians involve several branches of research. The “twin studies” have found that there is a genetic component to being gay or lesbian, but they fall short of finding the genes. It tends to run in families, strongly suggesting a genetic component, but has environmental causes, too, such as birth order in families with many sons and the mother’s age at birth for lesbians. Ruth would have known about this research. A 2012 article Ruth could not have known of by Dr. James Fowler, a professor at the School of Medicine and of the Development of Social Sciences at the University of California at San Diego, in the Journal of Politics from Cambridge University Press, describes the situation as one involving sensitivity to testosterone in the fetus from the regulation of genes or epigenetic effects (whether specific genes are turned “on” or “off”) as determined by the parent of the opposite gender to the gay person, fathers to daughters and mothers to sons. This accounts for some 64% of the tendency to be gay whereas genes and the environment account for the rest. The genetic effect is larger in gay men (35%) relative to the environmental effect and, conversely, the environmental effect is larger in lesbians relative to the genetic (only 18%). This research is the most complete answer to date, but I don’t have space to describe it in detail and must leave that to a curious reader’s own Internet research and reading. The major point is that “gay genes” will never be found; it is a matter of the effect of epigenes that turn particular genes involving sensitivity to testosterone “on” or “off.” They may or may not pass from parent to child.
Ruth’s observation that lesbian and gay couples have a more loving, trusting and intimate relationship than heterosexuals because they are more egalitarian is supported by the first study of the differences between gay and heterosexual relationships. It appeared in The Journal of Homosexuality, Volume 45 (1), 2003, and Ruth would have been familiar with it. It was carried out by two psychologists, Dr. John Gottman of the University of Washington and Dr. Robert Levenson of the University of California at Berkeley. A very scientifically sophisticated and conclusive study, it was carried out over a 12-year period and used physiological measurements of emotion as well as observation by psychologists and self-reporting by couples. This study found that gay couples used much more affection and humor to resolve conflicts and kept a more positive attitude toward themselves and the relationship. Too, they used fewer controlling and hostile strategies with one another and were less belligerent, domineering and threatening. Fairness and power sharing were more common and important in gay and lesbian relationships, enhancing trust and intimacy. The physiological measurements showed lower stress after a conflict in gay and lesbian couples. For heterosexuals, the physiological arousal indicating anger did not diminish, and heterosexual women were found to dislike and resent the oppression and unfairness of male dominance, leading to relationships that were less loving, trusting and intimate. This study was actually able to rate couple relationships in terms of love, intimacy, trust and maturity of conflict resolution and found lesbian relationships to be most intimate and mature followed by relationships between gay men, with heterosexual relationships ranked last. There were many other interesting contrasts in this research, but I leave that up to the curious reader who can find it readily on the Internet. The research concluded that straight couples should learn the egalitarian strategies of gay and lesbian couples, and that the greatest impediment for them is peer group pressure on heterosexual men to maintain dominance. It also expressed surprise that lesbian and gay relationships were superior to heterosexual relationships in spite of the oppression and social disapprobation typically faced by them from the society at large. The results of this study were replicated in a second study appearing in the January 2008 issue of Developmental Psychology, conducted by psychologists at the University of Washington and San Diego State University. This study also came to the same conclusion as Ruth, observing that heterosexual role-playing was not genetic and that straight couples should learn from the example of gay couples. These psychologists, too, found that the main problem for heterosexuals was peer group pressure from male groups to maintain male dominance and that this influence must be successfully challenged before heterosexual relationships could become as intimate and mature as gay and lesbian relationships.
Since this research is rock-solid as science (peer-reviewed journals, full replication of results by other researchers, longitudinal studies, physiological measures of emotion in addition to self-reporting by couples, etc.), it bears repeating that the research’s results – that gay and lesbian relationships are more loving, intimate, trusting, mature in conflict resolution and egalitarian – supports the opinion of the LGBT community for at least the last decade, in my opinion. Rather than inferior, their long-term relationships or marriages are an ideal to which heterosexuals should aspire, according to this research. However, it is only fair to observe that the research describes groups, not individuals. Any individual relationship could be an exception; there are heterosexual relationships that are intimate, trusting and egalitarian and homosexual ones that are not. However, they are then in the minority and not characteristic of the group as a whole.
Adding the prior research on women’s sexuality (that all women are bisexual), we should also observe that the LGBT community is not even a minority. In truth comprising all women and some ten percent of men, it is actually a sixty-some percent majority. In sum, ALL negative LGBT stereotypes, when put to the test, are false. Ruth describes herself as one who most wishes to push aside the curtain or secret that impedes our view of the world. You now know what Ruth found behind the curtain.
Twelve excerpts from The Sacred Beasts have appeared in ten publications (in a slightly different version from the original text in some cases): New Madrid Journal; Pennsylvania English; The Eureka Literary Review; Dispatches from Lesbian America, An Anthology (2016); S/tick: Feminists on Guard, OUTreach issue; Cliterature.org; Loud Zoo; Sinister Wisdom; Crab Fat Literary Magazine; and Wilde Magazine. I started out publishing in the university journals and then frankly picked magazines with the most outrageous titles.
Bev Jafek has published forty-five short stories and novel excerpts in the literary quarterly and university press publications. Some have been translated into German, Italian and Dutch and won many literary awards, including publication in the annual “prize” anthology, The Best American Short Stories. She also won the Carlos Fuentes Award and the Editor’s Prize for fiction from Columbia: A Magazine of Literature & Art as well as first prize in the Arch & Bruce Brown Foundation annual competition for “redemption of gay history” through creative writing. Her first story collection, The Man Who Took a Bite Out of His Wife, was published by Overlook Press (Penguin-Putnam). It was cited as one of the best story collections of the year in The Year’s Best Fantasy (7th edition, Teri Windling) as well as being selected as a finalist for the Crawford Award (best new fantasy fiction writer of the year). Her story “Holograms, Unlimited” was a finalist and cited for distinction in Pushcart Prize VIII. She lives in Beacon, NY with her partner of 32 years.