NNEDV’s Comments (group member since Sep 24, 2013)

NNEDV’s comments from the Reader with a Cause group.

What do you all think about Bad Feminist: Essays by Roxane Gay??

Are you enjoying this book of essays so far?

Has anyone picked this book up yet? Any initial thoughts or first impressions to share?

Our current book is Purple Hibiscus by Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie.

Have you started this book yet?

Any first impressions you'd like to share?

The Round House is populated with a fascinating cast of characters -- Geraldine and Bazil; Joe; Joe’s three friends (Cappy, Zack, & Angus), with their love of Star Trek and girls from Montana; Whitey and Sonja, a couple with a “volatile” relationship; Mooshum and Clemence, and their continuous fight over swamp tea vs. whiskey; Grandma Thunder and her neverending supply of food and dirty talk; and so many more. Louise Erdrich wrote each of these characters with care, making them well-rounded and believable.

Did you have a favorite? A least favorite? Why?

Ultimately, The Round House is a story about a lack of justice and the therefore seemingly inevitable desire for vengeance. Louise Erdrich has said that “In writing the book, the question was: If a tribal judge — someone who has spent his life in the law — cannot find justice for the woman he loves, where is justice? And the book is also about the legacy of generations of injustice, and what comes of that.”

Can revenge be “the only form of justice in some locations and in some terrible situations," as Erdrich asserts? Or, is it “a sorrow for the person who has to take it on?” Or something else entirely?


--
Quotes taken from an NPR interview found here: http://www.npr.org/2012/10/02/1620860...

From early on, Louise Erdrich carefully addresses the complexities inherent in trying criminal cases, particularly sexual assault, that involve Native victims and non-Native perpetrators on Native or state land.

“They need to get a statement. They should have been here.
We turned to go back to the room.
Which police? I asked.
Exactly, he said.” (12)

“My father had insisted that they each take a statement from my mother because it wasn’t clear where the crime had been committed -- on state or tribal land -- or who had committed it -- an Indian or a non-Indian. I already knew, in a rudimentary way, that these questions would swirl around the facts. I already knew, too, that these questions would not change the facts. But they would inevitably change the way we sought justice.” (12)

Unfortunately, little has changed since 1988 (the setting for The Round House). While the 2013 reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) closed a critical gap in justice by giving Tribal courts the authority to hold domestic violence offenders accountable, it did not extend these protections to victims of sexual assault or stalking.

What do you think these issues of jurisdiction (i.e., who has the authority to investigate and prosecute a case) and sovereignty (i.e., tribes’ right to govern themselves, manage tribal property, hear cases that occur on tribal lands, and much more) say about the historical and current relationships between tribes, states, and the federal government? What do you think about the fairness or justness of these limitations on jurisdiction and sovereignty?

One of the many things that we think Louise Erdrich did quite compellingly in this book was to illustrate both the immediate and long-term consequences and effects of a traumatic assault. Geraldine’s recovery and survival was complex and affected each member of her immediate family, her workplace, and her extended network of family and friends.

What did you think of this depiction? In particular, the effect that it had on Joe?

To us, this book wasn’t as much a “Whodunit?” as much as it was a “Will-he-be-held-accountable-for-it?” Depressingly and yet somewhat unsurprisingly, Linden Lark was not held accountable for his crimes in The Round House. Were you surprised by this? Why or why not?

Joe’s father tries to explain to Joe why this is through a strange casserole-and-cutlery-related metaphor, where each piece of cutlery explains a court decision or Act of Congress that has repercussions up through the present day (which is 1988 in this book).

Did you think that Joe (& Cappy) would go through with their plan to get revenge on Geraldine’s attacker?

What did you think of the book overall?

Our current book pick is The Round House by Louise Erdrich - who has picked up and/or started the book?

What do you think about this pick? Any initial thoughts or reactions to share?

The rest of our discussion questions will be posted soon - stay tuned!

In her conclusion, Sandberg points out that it is individual actions which change the larger picture of women’s participation and ultimate success in the workplace. She says that these “nudge techniques” are the small changes that are necessary; and that “social gains are never handed out. They must be seized.”

Overall, do you agree with Sandberg’s assertions of women being responsible for their own success or failure or do you think that she is ignoring larger structural inequalities? What “nudge techniques” do you think you can include in your own behavior?

Sandberg tackles the controversial topic of maternity and family leave head-on and encourages women to lean in even further right before going on maternity leave, explaining that this actually deepens a woman’s commitment to her job and gives her something to look forward to after her maternity leave ends.

Unfortunately, the odds are not in working mothers’ favor: “Only 74 percent of professional women will rejoin the workforce in any capacity, and only 40 percent will return to full-time jobs. Those who do rejoin will often see their earnings decrease dramatically. Controlling for education and hours worked, women’s average annual earnings decrease by 20 percent if they are out of the workforce for just one year. Average annual earnings decline by 30 percent after two to three years, which is the average amount of time that professional women off-ramp from the workforce.” (101-2)

Do you think “leaning in” before going on maternity leave is good advice? How else can we change company culture and relevant laws to make maternity and family leave more comprehensive and compulsive?

In the chapter “Are You My Mentor?” Sandberg focuses upon the important role that mentors often play in shaping the careers of young workers as they look to break into the workforce. She believes in the power of mentors, but she advises against the way in which women often seek out their mentors. Sandberg suggests that we need to stop telling young women, “Get a mentor, and you will excel,” instead we should tell them “Excel, and you will get a mentor.”

What role have mentors played in your career? Did you actively seek a mentor or did you find a mentor after you were already well established in your career? What do you think is the best way to get a mentor?

In her chapter “Seek and Speak Your Truth,” Sandberg discusses the conflict women often face at work in the expectation of managing a professional self. Sandberg asserts that the idea of having a dual identity inside of work vs. who you are on the weekends is a farce. Instead, she advocates for a more authentic self.

The U.S. Department of Labor apparently agrees with Sandberg – in this blog entry “Coming to Work Fully,” Kathy Martinez applauds organizations, like the DOL, that encourage employees to bring their “whole selves” to the job.

What do you think about the cultural expectation to keep emotions and/or your “whole self” out of the office? Do you think being more open at work actually leads to a more “authentic self?”

Sandberg references Carol Frohlinger and Deborah Kolb, founders of Negotiating Women Inc., and their description of “Tiara Syndrome,” which they describe as a phenomenon wherein women expect that if they “keep doing their job well someone will notice them and place a tiara on their head.” Sandberg asserts that despite the fact that hard work and results should be recognized, they often are not. Instead of waiting for our power to be seen by our coworkers and supervisors, women need to be assertive and use all available opportunities to demonstrate their power and worth.

Though Sandberg is making a powerful assertion about a woman’s need to be more assertive in the workplace, this conflicts with her other assertions that women who are more assertive in the workplace are often penalized for this more “masculine behavior.” Do you find that these two ideas to be in conflict?

What do you think about the concept of “Tiara Syndrome?” Do you think that women should risk being penalized in order to avoid it? Have you witnessed “Tiara Syndrome” in your own work-life or in your workplace?

Sandberg’s educational accolades and professional accomplishments (earning an A.B. and M.B.A. from Harvard, past Vice President of Global Online Sales at Google, and current COO of Facebook) provide her with a unique perspective on women in business, given that women only run 4.8% of Fortune 500 companies. [1]

Did you find Sandberg’s advice to be applicable for women of all socioeconomic classes, or only to women working in professional environments with educational backgrounds similar to her own? (Sandberg herself asserts in the beginning of the book that her suggestions may not be applicable for all individuals.) Do you find parts of Sandberg's advice useful even if your background is far different from hers?

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_...

In the Heidi vs. Howard Harvard study that Sandberg references, the author illustrates the expectation for women to assist their coworkers and contribute to a more communal workforce. Women who don’t help their coworkers are seen less favorably and may even be penalized for their behavior; therefore, women are stuck in a “damned if they do or damned if they don’t” situation.

What do you think: do women perpetuate this expectation in the workplace? Do men truly “pay no penalty” if they choose not to participate in a more communal workplace?

Sandberg often refers to women’s problematic habit of remaining spectators in professional environments...

“Secretary Geithner’s team, all women, took their food last and sat in chairs off to the side of the room. I motioned for the women to come and sit at the table, waving them over so they would feel welcomed. They demurred and remained in their seats. The four women had every right to be at this meeting, but because of their seating choice, they seemed like spectators rather than participants.” (Chapter 2 “Sit at the Table,” page 28)

Have you ever noticed yourself “playing the spectator?” If so, do you think it was self-imposed or projected due to your gender and the expectation that you play more of a supportive role?

What did you think of the book?? Did you try any of Sandberg’s tips or recommendations? Would you recommend this book to a friend?

[[Full Disclosure: NNEDV is on Facebook’s Safety Advisory Board, but we were not asked to select this book by Facebook, nor did Sheryl Sandberg or any other Facebook employee provide any input on the discussion questions developed by NNEDV.]]

Our current book pick is Lean In: Women, Work, and the Will to Lead by Sheryl Sandberg - we'll be reading and discussing this book through May 15, 2014!

Who has picked up and/or started the book?

What do you think about this pick? Any initial thoughts or reactions to share?

In Veronica Roth’s Divergent, your faction (Amity - the kind, Abnegation - the selfless, Candor - the honest, Dauntless - the brave, and Erudite - the smart) essentially replaces your family, even though most people choose to stay in the faction in which they were born.

For all, the mantra “faction before blood” defines life, blurring the lines between family, community, and vocation.

For initiates like Tris and Christina – those who choose a faction different from the one into which they were born – “faction before blood” has a clear meaning that helps them move through the initiation process: forget your old family and faction and dedicate your life to your new faction, which replaces your family and also provides you with a purpose in life.

For initiates like Uriah and Marlene – those who remain in the faction in which they were born – what kind of meaning do you think they derive from this mantra?

What does it mean to you?