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

Katelyn’s comments from the Our Shared Shelf group.

Patriarchy has nothing to do with individual men. I would also push back on the definition that it is "created by men, for men." It was, but that simplifies it a bit in a way that I think obscures the fact that most people are not reinforcing patriarchy on purpose, and individual men are not to blame.

Can we give it up already with comparing feminists to Nazis? Even if patriarchy were a conspiracy, there is no movement to exterminate men in concentration camps. So regardless of its legitimacy, the comparison is offensive both to feminists and to the victims and survivors of the Holocaust. Compare it to another conspiracy, if you'd like. That one, though, is not at all an accurate comparison and is offensive in a damaging and malicious way.

Furthermore, while I have no idea about your background, Jason, I do know that I've written extensively on the early twentieth century, specifically World War II, and at least in the way that you are presenting your knowledge here, your understanding of the Third Reich is rather two-dimensional. It's a lot more complicated than "Hitler blamed his personal failings on the Jews."

Marina wrote: "I came across the following in a review:
"I hated that the only time she included a trans person in her book she made them into joke."
can anyone expand on this? why hasn't this been mentioned? :O

(on a side note, can a mod add something like "lack of intersectionality" to the title of this thread?) "

I'll defer to the OP if she feels that the title should be changed.

I'm a little confused by that review quote. I'm assuming she's referring to the use of the word "tranny," which was not in reference to a specific trans person, and, while one may object to its use in all contexts, it was not being used as a joke, but as a descriptor.

And she does mention transgender folks (not anyone specific, but in general), a couple of times throughout the book. So while I'd agree that some of her ideas are expressed in a way that can be justifiably interpreted as exclusionary, I don't think that quote is accurate. Unless it is in reference to a different part of the book.

Was the link in message 245 directed at me? Just asking because I had posted immediately before it.

Emily wrote: "Katelyn wrote: "Emily wrote: "I'm currently reading "What Will It Take to Make a Woman President?" by Marianne Schnall, which is a collection of interviews of leaders in various fields to attempt t..."

So if we come up with a list of women who have been significant throughout history, we start to obscure the issues that originally prevented them from being recognized. Good point!!

The trend may be changing, but I don't think that means it should be. Not saying that there aren't any comedians with something worthwhile to say, but I think it's dangerous when we start relying on them for that material because politicians are failing us.

@Bunny: the 50 page rule is an interesting one. I guess it also all depends on what you're reading for, and what your criteria are. That rule probably wouldn't work for me. But I can see that it would be a useful tool for others!

I've said it before, I absolutely condemn the things that Moran says that are exclusive. I think those points are up for debate, and we can discuss them without one side being considered "white feminists." I find myself analyzing these moments in the text most of all, not necessarily to find reasons to forgive her for them, but to make sure I am fully understanding them in context. I respect others for having personal reasons that certain words are completely off limits, but that's not my policy. I don't go around using words likely to offend people, but in my reading, I try to keep an open mind and examine why certain words are chosen. As I've said elsewhere, people deciding not to read a book is perfectly fine, but it does, to some extent, seem that there is a level of judgment being directed toward those who have been able to see the good in this book, and I think it's important to simply recognize that it doesn't mean they've ignored the bad. Like Bunny said, it is entirely possible to see both and still engage with the text on both a critical and conversational level.

Emily wrote: "I'm currently reading "What Will It Take to Make a Woman President?" by Marianne Schnall, which is a collection of interviews of leaders in various fields to attempt to understand the scope of the ..."

That's how I read it. Whether or not that's how she meant it, I've enough history background to know that that's the truth of the matter, so at the very least, I posed my own understanding onto the text.

I think the key here is that equality does not necessarily mean everyone is exactly them same, it just means the same opportunities. Women historically did not have nearly the same opportunities. We cannot retroactively give them those opportunities. So is it just to, as the quote says, go out of our way to find significant women from the past and laud them as the equals of men who were at the top of their fields? I think it is important to search for them and keep an open mind, but perhaps not to laud them as equals unless they were indeed equals. And if they DID manage to be equals, well, that makes them all the more impressive. They're definitely out there, but it is naive to think that there are as many historically, because the opportunity just wasn't there.

So if we follow this, within my field of music history, there are certainly many women composers from the past that have been named here, and they are significant and important. But there aren't nearly as many as men. Hildegard von Bingen is the greatest, most impressive example. Fanny Mendelssohn, though rumored to be superior at composition than her brother Felix when they were young, was not able to follow through as a career composer. She's noteworthy, but I don't think she should be held to quite the same regard as Hildegard von Bingen or male examples. And this is all based in a historical understanding of what constitutes "good music" at all, which is subjective, cultural, and changes over time. But that's another issue altogether :)

Natalie wrote: "I mean shouldn't the sexual education of children come from open and responsible sources like schools and especially parents. Now not every parent is helpful or proactive, and our education system could use some work, this is true. But watching porn doesn't seem like a healthy alternative to me."

She doesn't say that porn should be sexual education for children, but that it often is because we tend to wait too long to actually educate them. So by the time children are getting sex ed, they have already started watching porn, because in fact many of them start to feel sexual urges and are not equipped to understand them. Porn then becomes one of the few ways for them to deal with the desires that they aren't able to understand fully.

So it's more about the failure of sex ed. I think Moran would agree that even porn that is ethically made (it does exist!) should not stand in for sex ed.

I took her arguments regarding: 1. sex ed and 2. accessibility to what she defines as good porn, to be two different issues, though connected.

I agree with Erika. Porn isn't for everyone, but there IS porn out there, whether it is operating within the industry or away from it, that is made ethically and can manage not to objectify women.

Indigo, thank you for your honest and open post! It means a lot that you are comfortable about sharing with us :) I particularly liked your description about experiencing gender euphoria. And sorry to hear about the expense that awaits should you choose to pursue surgery... It's so frustrating. Health care has come a long way but there's still a lot that needs to be done in order to fully take care of everyone regardless of gender identity.

Leanne wrote: "Bunny that's super interesting! Would you mind DMing me the interview?"

Ditto! Or just post here. Sounds super interesting, and I think it is definitely relevant :)

Emma wrote: "It would be really interesting to calculate the metrics of the Meyers Briggs test results of everyone from OSS. I wonder if certain types of personalities are more likely to be members of OSS or mo..."

Well on this thread alone so far, it looks like we've got only one "E" and everyone else seems to be "EN." (I know there are specific abbreviations for talking about each element in isolation, but I'm not that fluent!)

And definitely a higher occurrence of INTJs than is typical, especially for women!

I've only just skimmed all of these posts, but I just wanted to say that I think unionization is the key in any profession, especially those that have health and safety issues beyond on the norm, which I think is the case with sex work. As it stands, so many sex workers are dependent on exploitative managers/pimps (is pimp an okay title? It's kind of ubiquitous... but I'm saying managers as well because not every sex worker has a pimp specifically...). Not that all managers/pimps are exploiting their workers, but when the profession is illegal and there isn't a union, it's that much easier to take advantage of workers who, as Bunny said earlier, are often quite vulnerable and marginalized even aside from their profession.

Bunny wrote: "I'm just going to park this here.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/26/fas..."

Why didn't you warn me that this would make me cry at work?!?!?!

Ana wrote: "I wonder whether this thread is not a duplicate of others? Not that it is not interesting, just that for the sake of management we gotta be careful with duplicates. Any other mods that can weigh in..."

I could only find threads that had been inactive for awhile and were already locked and archived. Unless I missed one!

You are also free to discuss books past the end of the month. Discussions are still open and available since we begin in January.

Locked and Archived

The first couple of rounds of moderators added to the group were chosen back in January, when there was a significantly smaller group of members to choose from who were active in a way that indicated likely commitment.

We're also making efforts to cover multiple languages and time zones.

We also have a number of moderators who are part of Emma's team or are contacts for Goodreads.

As far as concerns about moderators guiding topics about race or whatever else, I just want to point out that any personal views that we express are solely our own and do not represent Our Shared Shelf or Emma Watson. As moderators, however, we do try to keep discussions on topic (based on thread title/folder organization), make sure the group rules are being followed, and referee conversations as needed to make sure all members are having a positive experience (as I've been attempting to do with these threads lately, to make sure members are being respectful and allowing for a larger number of voices to be heard). We do not make any attempts to influence the content of what discussions happen here or to censor members (unless they specifically break the rules). We certainly aren't trying to guide conversations with regards to content. I hope this alleviates some of your concerns!

Raizel wrote: "I believe that many people loose their inner spark, their self-confidence because they experience compulsory schooling.."

Yeah, I think that's a good point. Homeschooling can be hit or miss, really, but it seems to have done her a lot of good!

Bunny wrote: "I have been reading The Almost Nearly Perfect People: Behind the Myth of the Scandinavian Utopia which was recommended by a member of this group and is a book by a British journalis..."

That's a really interesting observation. I wonder if she has been successful because she can so easily fit into this model, or if we was influenced by publishers to amp up those aspects of her writing. Perhaps a bit of both? Although she doesn't seem like the type to give in to demands that she would have felt strongly opposed to.

Great links, Lou! Thanks!

I actually thought the photo on the back of the book didn't look like her much at all, and I thought perhaps it was either a young person or a mock-up of Caitlin herself, meant to represent her younger self, given the book is about her childhood as much as her adulthood. But I could definitely be wrong. She just looks so very different in each picture!

The cover places it among a lot of similar books that sport similar covers. Bossypants, for example, they specifically compare it to on the cover, and other comedic memoirs written by women.

Aglaea wrote: "Hey, we have the discussion on porn and prostitution already, so I'm curious about the difference to this one. Did you mean a more narrow angle for this thread?"

Ah, I had forgotten that one. Well, this thread seems to be mainly focused on the workers themselves, rather than consumption. Not sure that I remember what the other thread's focus was?

I think the Intersectionality folder is an appropriate place for this topic, given its intersection with criminality. I think intersectionality can include anything that "mainstream" feminism tends to ignore or disparage in an effort to be inclusive.

Bunny wrote: "Also thank you for changing the thread title Katelyn!"

It must've been Adam, actually! I saw that comment, and then it completely slipped my mind as I read the rest of them. Sorry about that :)

True, it's not all. I just found this blog post that made me feel better about it. Lots of great INTJs! Although there does seem to be a higher occurrence of villains than other types. Understandable, I suppose!

http://myfangirllife.com/2015/02/11/c...