January 12, 1992

Athena
P.O. Box 5028
Thousand Oaks, California 91360

Dear Editor:
     A friend just sent me your “Sometimes Feminists Embarrass Me” column from the Winter/Spring 1991 issue of Athena. I wish I could express to you how disgusted I was to see my 23 days in jail diminished by Raven to “theorizing and acting out.” Only a pathetically misguided soul would attempt to categorize what I do as theorizing.
     I went to jail to protest Esquire because this mass media presentation of male supremacy is what is at the root of male ownership of women. I don’t need to tell you that this is the fundamental cause of men’s abuse of women close to them.
     My resistance against Esquire was properly directed and executed. It was a radical political action that was as effective as anything else done to date about that particular issue of the magazine. It certainly outshines the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence’s (NCDAV) acceptance of a donation amounting to $10,000.00 from Esquire; and then, to add insult to injury, their acceptance of 6 pro-bono ads from Esquire after their horrible insult to women. (Advertising Age, October 22, 1990.) Raven attempts to discount this obvious cooptation in the same swipe as she discounts my work.
     For a moment forget Tammy Bruce’s excellent work and words against Esquire. Bruce, who has always been politically astute and consistent in her deeds, doesn’t (that I know of) directly represent NCADV. What did NCADV ever say or write against Esquire? NCADV had a responsibility to speak out against that issue of Esquire and all we heard from them was a resounding silence.
     But, I’ll tell you one thing NCADV did do that I believe indicates serious cooptation. At the beginning of November in 1990, Debra White from the Washington D.C. chapter of NCADV called Tara Baxter at Media Watch in Santa Cruz. The conversation was written down right after it took place. It’s not word-for-word, but it’s close.
     Debra White called Media Watch and explained that she had read in Media Watch’s newsletter about my arrest and also about Media Watch’s boycott of Esquire. She then proceeded to ask Tara:

1). “Under what circumstance would Media Watch call off the boycott against Esquire?”

2). “Would Media Watch call [the boycott] off if they knew Esquire was doing something good for women? 3). White also asked how much my fines were for ripping up the Esquire magazines. She also asked if Tara was aware that Esquire was giving money to battered women’s shelters.

     On November 20th I spoke with Debra White for about 20 minutes. During that conversation she said that indeed those were the questions that she had asked Tara. She also confirmed that she did offer to have any of my fines paid if that would end the boycott. After I confronted her about it she said that it was a personal inquiry, and that she did not want it construed that she was representing NCADV. Why then did she identify herself as being with the organization in her first call to Tara if it was only a personal inquiry?
     I’d lay my little bit of money on this: that when Debra White called Media Watch she was negotiating in the interest of Esquire Magazine. Her phrasing reveals she was not speaking in the interest (or even the voice) of battered women, but negotiating for a magazine that preaches male supremacist doctrine. Had she been speaking in the interest of women her questions would have been phrased thusly: “What can we do to support the boycott to make it more effective?” Instead she phrased it this way: “Under what circumstance would Media Watch call off the boycott against Esquire?” Had she been speaking in the interest of women she might have offered to pay my fines, but it surely would not have been to get me and Media Watch off the backs of Esquire.
     During that same conversation White informed me that NCADV had not written one letter — not one — against Esquire’s Wife Ownership issue, and that she was “not at liberty to tell [me] about any negotiations [they] were having with Esquire.” She said I seemed to be being “accusatory.” Well, damn right, I was asking pointed questions of her. Somebody needed to.
After the phone call I began calling around the country. I spoke with about 20 women. Many of these women expressed concern that NCADV was “no longer representing the interest of battered women.”
     I have been, within the last five years, in a relationship where I was battered by a man, and I am currently involved in, in fact immersed in, several projects directly regarding violence against women, and battery in particular. I work directly with many people, men and women, in the so-called domestic violence movement. Is “Raven” even aware of the political, yes I said political, work that I do?
     Since Raven ventures to tell me what I should be doing, then I’ve got a few ideas for her. Why doesn’t Raven stop using her publication to trash another woman and go after the real enemy? Why doesn’t Raven stop being so confused and confusing, and why doesn’t she stop depoliticizing women’s experiences, and above all else why doesn’t she stop therapizing? Why doesn’t Raven stop trivializing the cooptation of (and making apologies for) an organization that should be, and is not, fervently speaking in behalf of women and instead aligning and negotiating with the patriarchy? Why doesn’t Raven stop berating my life’s work against what she professes to hate — violence against women?
     Raven says to stop “theorizing and acting out.” She says that “[I] could have visited a battered women’s shelter and brought advice, money and emotional support all in that one night — and really made a difference!” Why doesn’t Raven stop being so naive? — Naive enough to think that a one night visit could balance all that rests on the other work that I do long term for women these last 20 years. Also, while I’m at it, why doesn’t Raven just stop being so presumptuous to think that she has the right to tell me what to do in the first place?

Sincerely, Nikki Craft

cc: Tammy Bruce, Ann Simonton, Tara Baxter