Katelyn’s Comments (group member since Jan 07, 2016)

Katelyn’s comments from the Our Shared Shelf group.

Lauren wrote: "I just want to say I thank you for this thread.

I have a question does anyone else dislike the term mansplaining? I personally feel it's derogatory to men much in the same way as the phrase mummy ..."

Well, I think in the example you give, the woman does not know what mansplaining is. When used correctly, I think it is an apt term for a phenomenon that is very real and pervasive, at least in my experience.

Celian wrote: "I liked that book, it was very funny and sad over the homesickness the leading character have had over her country, yet chosen to live out to have the freedom she longed for. Quite a courage, as no..."

Thanks for the recommendation. You can suggest it for the group by following the directions here: How to Suggest a Book
Additionally, you can suggest it in relevant book lists in the book suggestion folder. Those lists are based on subject matter, genre, etc. You can start your own list if you don't see one for a particular subject or genre already, but please check first, as we will remove duplicate threads.

Just want to point out we should be careful not to conflate radical feminists and feminist anarchists. Important distinction, IMO.

Your point about women being judged differently and the media manipulating women's reputations as role models, I think, is very important! Women are held to a higher standard generally, but even further, we need to stop entirely condemning people when they don't get everything 100% right. I see this happen a lot for feminist leaders. They're discarded after one misstep, and that's really unfortunate, as they still have plenty of value to contribute.

I've finally found time to continue reading The Argonauts! So glad to be back with this material.

I wanted to discuss the following passage, especially because it relates to a conversation we've had regarding a point made by Caitlin Moran in How to Be a Woman about pornography standing in for sexual education for young people. How do you think the authors' perspectives compare? Do you agree?

I think we could also draw some connections to some of what bell hooks has to say about abuse in All About Love: New Visions. In fact, maybe it's worth thinking about Celie's childhood experiences of abuse in The Color Purple as well! Wow, lots of connections to make!

(I'm reading from the Kindle so I don't have a page number, but this is about 43% into the book)

If you're looking for sexual tidbits as a female child, and the only ones that present themselves depict child rape or other violations (all my favorite books in my preteen years: I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings, Clan of the Cave Beat, The World According to Garp, as well as the few R-rated movies I was allowed to see—Fame, most notably, with its indelible scene of Irene Cara being asked to take her shirt off and suck her thumb by a skeezy photographer who promises to make her a star), then your sexuality will form around that fact. There is no control group. I don't even want to talk about "female sexuality" until there is a control group. And there never will be.

(Much of what follows is very relevant too, regarding pleasure, degradation, curiosity, ambivalence, etc. but I didn't want to quote too extensively!)

Let's get the discussion back on topic, shall we? The topic is radical feminism, not groupthink.

Jason's opinion that radical feminism is an example of groupthink is duly noted. Thank you for your contribution to the conversation.

Does anyone else have thoughts?

Andrea wrote: "Katelyn wrote: "Of course the story is not perfect. There are parts of it that certainly can be interpreted as mysoginist.

That being said, I generally agree that it's more complex than that. I th..."

Now that Pepe is blocked, let's carry on with the discussion, shall we?

I don't know if the Beast would've fallen for her if not for her appearance, but I think any assumptions that a feminist character cannot be attractive and be taken seriously are incorrect. That being said, her main identifier is her beauty, as in the title, although this could just be because they wanted to translate Belle? It's more catchy? Idk. It might also be read as another example of "you can't judge a book by its cover." She may be beautiful, but in the end, that's not necessarily what wins the day. I'd say its bravery and kindness (her intelligence isn't really put to use which is something I do think is a flaw of the narrative).

Pepe wrote: "You all swallow everything without any kind of critical thought, with such a lack of consciousness of what surrounds you. Everything's just fine and perfect. And then suddently you see that things ..."

Well, now you are directly insulting our members, so I don't know what else you expect?

We are having a thoughtful discussion about a movie that we believe has some feminist qualities. Just because you disagree, doesn't mean that we aren't thinking critically. You have no directly addressed any of the points I've made, so I could claim that you are the one that isn't thinking critically. Just because something isn't perfect, does not mean that it must be discarded as worthless. We are discussing the movie's merits. If you disagree, that's fine, and you are welcome to express that. It is your insults that the members here are naive and uncritical that will get you removed from this group.

Pepe wrote: "Katelyn wrote: "Pepe wrote: "Katelyn wrote: "Of course the story is not perfect. There are parts of it that certainly can be interpreted as mysoginist.

That being said, I generally agree that it's..."

If we do end up banning you, it is because you are breaking group rules by being disrespectful to other members. Politeness is something we value here. If your values do not align with ours, than perhaps you should find another internet forum where the community condones rudeness amongst its members. That is not here.

You can continue to repeat your same points about the story, but that doesn't negate the fact that some of them are false: Your sarcastic insinuation that she goes to the castle against her will is simply false. She chooses to go and acts heroically. By denying her that agency and claiming she was not acting of her own accord, you are the one being sexist, not those of us who enjoy the story despite its flaws.

This seems to fit into the pattern of you also underestimating me and our members. We can handle your impoliteness. You just can't handle that we are unruffled. If you want to be more impolite, go right ahead. Doesn't change the fact that we can handle it, and you'd be breaking group rules even further with your disrespect.

Pepe wrote: "Katelyn wrote: "Of course the story is not perfect. There are parts of it that certainly can be interpreted as mysoginist.

That being said, I generally agree that it's more complex than that. I th..."

The story may have originally been written in the 18th century, but the animated Disney movie was made in 1991. Just like other Disney movies, the original tale does not necessarily resemble the narrative that we see in the movie.

All of that being said, I don't think it matters if the story is "an example of what feminism should be." Of course it's not... it's a fairytale for children. Feminism is a complex concept and to expect any story to be a perfect "example" is unrealistic. The story on its surface is perhaps problematic, but there are ways of viewing it that are more complicated, interesting, and empowering. While some children may glean from it a lesson of "you can change the bad boy! It's worth the abuse!" Others will take it differently... I certainly did as a child. I learned that it's okay to be myself and that everyone deserves empathy and kindness, and it will help us relate to one another. It never crossed my mind that I should be subservient to an abusive man. Whether you see it that way is irrelevant. Everyone gets something different out of every story. We can debate about them, but that doesn't change that for some, the story is empowering and valuable. Telling a group of people that feel differently that a story they enjoy is "horrible" is impolite. Perhaps consider Belle's position of agency in the story, rather than only seeing the Beast as the all-dominant figure. Maybe the assumption that he has all the power because he is bigger and scarier causes one to project an entirely patriarchal reading onto the story. There are many different types of strength. I think you are underestimating the character of Belle.

Of course the story is not perfect. There are parts of it that certainly can be interpreted as mysoginist.

That being said, I generally agree that it's more complex than that. I think that the key here is Gaston. If it were just a story about Belle being captured and falling in love with the Beast, I might be inclined to agree, but the Gaston scene at the beginning establishes Belle as independent and unwilling to put up with gross, horrible shit. She recognizes that Gaston is an entitled, creepy, potentially threatening figure and thus rejects him. The Beast, however, is angry and posturing, but he never harms her. Plus, most importantly, he didn't kidnap her! She made a heroic decision to take her father's place, because he was sick.

Belle can see through the Beast's anger and performative masculinity (a direct result, I think, of having been dehumanized), and recognizes him as fundamentally different from Gaston. In this way, I see the story about two outsiders finding common ground and recognizing in each other the things that no one else is able to see.

Statistics have shown, time and time again, that the number of false rape/sexual assault reports are on par with those for any other crime.

And again, you are using the term "radical feminism" incorrectly. Radical does not just mean "extreme" or "militant" in this case. It is a specific type of feminism.

It is clear that you have your mind made up, though, and guess what, most people around here do, too. So unless you are interested in participating in our book club (remember, this is a book club!), I don't know why you are here on this forum.

They're not synonyms. And the perspective of one particular person's philosophy is not proof in any way. I could list a number of other philosophers, theorists, thinkers, authors, experts, etc. whose work opposes Ayn Rand.

Depends on the field! Sometimes its fine and sometimes it's not. Generally, though, I'd say it's not a problem unless the graduate student is irresponsible, disingenuous, or in some other way disrespectful to the community.

I do think that if there were a larger number of people from such marginalized communities pursuing academic careers, the problem (as it is perceived) would be somewhat mitigated.

There is something valuable about having both insider and outsider perspectives. And I want to reiterate that I'm considering this in a strictly academic context... this is not the case with, like, random think pieces online (I'm sure we all know the kind of thing I'm referring to). Assuming that academics are doing their due diligence, it shouldn't matter where they come from. But like I said before, it would be preferable to have both perspectives, and in order for that to happen, we need more people from marginalized communities to have the opportunity to pursue scholarly work.

Jason wrote: "Any concept can be radicalized and political correctness has been. And anything having to do with "identity" completely contradicts hive mentality. There IS no identity in a hive mind collective bu..."

Right, but this topic is not about radicalism in general, it is about radical feminism. Identity politics and political correctness are not necessarily related to radical feminism.

Furthermore, identity politics can absolutely involve hive mind(s), and in fact I would argue that in its most extreme form, identity politics relies on that kind of mentality.

Hi Andrea,

Great topic! I'd just like to encourage members to try to focus on Beauty and the Beast in this topic, as there is already a general Disney topic here: https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

Please be sure to do a quick search using the bar to the right of the discussion board before posting to check if there is already a thread for that topic.

But please do discuss Beauty and the Beast specifically here! There is plenty to say about it in relation to feminism!

How can you yourself know whether or not another person is expressing their personal beliefs or not, though? Certainly there are people that jump on bandwagons as they come and go, but there are plenty of legitimate reasons to identify as a radical feminist or to encourage political correctness.

I'd also like to point out that these kinds of buzzwords are often used incorrectly. For example, a few weeks ago I saw a think piece that attempted to prove that Hillary Clinton is a radical feminist, which is clearly untrue. Same with the term "politically correct," which is thrown around pretty much anytime someone suggests that another person be more sensitive and respectful to the marginalized people around them. Political correctness is not censorship. It is simply recognizing that there are systems in place that value certain identities over others, and we should try to do what we can to alleviate those pressures in every day life by being respectful and fair.

I'll also mention that in my experience, people participating in anything that I would consider resembling a "hive mind" are usually indulging in identity politics and neo-liberalism. Assuming you're referring to people that are actually radical feminists (or radical anything), they're usually not just jumping on some bandwagon. They've usually spent a lot of time and energy on these issues. True radicalism is not usually a casual fling.

Also, political correctness is definitely not a radical concept. Not saying that you were claiming it was necessarily, but just wanted to point that out.

Hi Adam, there are already posts relating to this topic where you can post relevant links.
Please be sure to do a quick search using the bar to the right of the discussion board before posting to check if there is already a thread for that topic. You are welcome to post links to outside media, but rather than starting a new topic for each one, check to see if there are already threads available where you can post them to add to an already established conversation.

Locked and archived

Kressel wrote: "It's hard to see your kid throw away whatever you raised him or her to be."

Perhaps the larger and arguably more important issue to consider, then, is not an individual parent's feelings on their child's transition, but the idea that parents raise their children "to be" one gender or another, or "as" one gender or another. If there were more flexibility, culturally speaking, and gender roles were less rigid, it seems that both child AND parent would have an easier time with the transition and its effect on their relationship.

I think the feelings/experiences of parents, partners, friends, etc. are worth telling and learning about. And they deserve our empathy. To point to another "big picture" issue, though, I know there is a good deal of frustration from the trans community that these stories are told more often than their own. This makes sense: Hollywood and the other industries that primarily produce these stories in a public forum are using this as a strategy so that audiences can relate more easily. It helps us learn to navigate these concepts to see the story through the eyes of someone "like us." This is seen over and over again in both trans and disability narratives (coincidentally in two recent films starring Eddie Redmayne: The Danish Girl and The Theory of Everything, both of which I liked a lot, but definitely recognize the drawbacks of their chosen POVs). So I think the example that Nelson gives is just one more story about trans people told from the cis perspective.

Bunny wrote: "I am uncertain about why Jason is here, since he doesn't appear to believe in feminism. But I guess it takes all sorts. I have read some quite good books by women about pregnancy and child raising...."

I think also the literature to which Maggie Nelson refers in the book are more theoretical/philosophical, rather than the kind of pregnancy preparation books like the one you mention. Perhaps that's where the gender disparity comes in, as philosophy is already such a male-dominated field?

I may have misunderstood her references, though!