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

Katelyn’s comments from the Our Shared Shelf group.

Bunny wrote: "Its not is society creating transgender people, its society is creating the idea that transgender people are surprising!"

Or, I might posit, that these different combinations are all that unusual, or that trans folks are different from the rest because of those combinations, when it is far more likely that we probably each represent a unique combination (some of which seen to present more similarly than others, perhaps).

Emma wrote: "One of my favorite things about these personality tests is the info graphics that list different characters from stories or movies or books or tv shows and lists the characters' Myers Briggs person..."

I love those, too!

INTJ is always some kind of villainous man. For Harry Potter, it's usually Draco (although I don't really think he fits this type well).

Hi Mahima, there is already a post on the gender pay gap here: https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/18079736-facebook-and-microsoft-eliminating-gender-wage-gap
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. The topic that I've linked started with a specific example, but the discussion overall is about the issue in general.

Locked and archived

I think it is potentially dangerous to assume that the only members who are feeling discouraged from participating are white, cishet, and able-bodied.

There are members here from all over the world. As I have said multiple times, they are from countless backgrounds, language facility, age brackets, education level, socioeconomic status, etc. ... I agree that we should not stop talking about these issues because it makes the demographic you target feel uncomfortable, because that is one of the goals of these discussions. But on such a diverse internet forum, it cannot be assumed that that is what is happening here.

We need to make room for people to engage with the books, which is the purpose of this group, regardless of their exposure to these issues. At a certain point, we need to make room for those who perhaps have never known what feminism is to begin with, or who have never heard of intersectionality before, or who do not have the educational background that informs this knowledge, or do not have the language ability to know which words are appropriate and which are not. There is room to learn in threads like this. What the moderators are hoping is for members to allow others to express their opinions without fear of being criticized for their opinions or mistakes that they might make in posting them here. There have been members who have expressed anxiety about sharing here since this month's book discussion went live on April 1st, and we are simply asking that members are sensitive to the different backgrounds that our members come from.

I think that this is, in fact, very much in line with the intersectionality that we are striving for in this thread. It's a hard balance to achieve.

That's a great strategy, Bunny. I'm going to mention it to the other Mods and see if we can come up with a way to keep track of things and label threads better. We just want to be careful not to step on OPs' toes or accidentally censor conversation topics :)

Aglaea wrote: "Katelyn wrote: "Aglaea, I agree with you on the negative stereotype that suggests that only uncaring, selfish women get abortions, which is of course untrue. That being said, the expectation that a..."

Absolutely! I kind of think the whole "pro-this, pro-that" stuff is tiresome and ridiculous, but necessary to some extent because of the way that "pro-life" rhetoric positions abortion. If we all accepted it as a necessary medical procedure, then we wouldn't need to make all of these distinctions about what we support, what we don't. There are emotional components to a lot of surgeries, to varying degrees. People often have to give something up for their health or quality of life.

I actually first read that article during the height of the anti-Planned Parenthood stuff going on in the U.S., and there was a meme going around listing all the different services that PP provides, and last stating the fact that abortion only accounts for 3% of PP services, and does not receive federal funding. Someone wrote a post in response to this, basically explaining that while that is all important to recognize, it's also important that we avoid casting abortion as something bad that they do (But only 3% of the time!!!). Does that make sense? Like, "don't cut funding for PP, abortion is only 3% of services, the rest are super important and objectively acceptable!" make sit seem like an apology for the abortion portion of their services.

Bunny, that's a great point, and I completely agree.

I will clarify, though, that the concerns about being silenced are compounded by the fact that we all came to OSS to read together and discuss the books, and some members feel as though they are unable to discuss the books without feeling like their enjoyment of it is problematic or offensive to others.

This thread is great for those arguments, but there are other threads that have been evolved into similar discussions, leaving very little space for conversations about anything other than intersectionality. It is important that we maintain intersectionality in our discussions, but that doesn't necessarily require explicit discussions of the concept in every topic. Some people may be uncomfortable because they are unsure how to discuss these things, and wish to discuss other things about the book, and many of those conversations are veering back to the same question. I think it would be beneficial to make an effort to keep our conversations varied, in order to make room for people with different backgrounds, language facility, age, education level, etc.

Marina wrote: "Sure, I'm all for letting people who've actually read the book lead here. I just don't think that those who haven't should be silenced. besides, some words are just never okay, no matter the contex..."

I certainly did not mean to imply that members who have not read the book should be silenced or discouraged from participating.

I simply would caution people from purposefully looking for quotes that they find offensive, by reading a list of out-of-context passage on Goodreads. Frankly, it is not a productive way to have a discussion, and not really in the spirit of the community that as a book club we are trying to foster.

This reminds me of the chapter "Dirt" in Laura Kipnis's book The Female Thing: Dirt, Sex, Envy, Vulnerability, which I reviewed on my Goodreads profile here if anyone is interested.

Anyway, not only are we covered in bacteria, we are also constantly producing our own waste and shedding it everywhere.

I think it's interesting to consider how different people conceptualize this in their own lives. Certainly someone with OCD or extreme germophobia might struggle with this, and the presence of excessive body hair might be tied up in that.

Ultimately, the most important thing in all of this is that there are a number of valid reasons to want to be either hairy or hairless, but unequal expectations based on gender should not be one of them.

Aglaea, I agree with you on the negative stereotype that suggests that only uncaring, selfish women get abortions, which is of course untrue. That being said, the expectation that a woman should feel guilt, or should regret her decision, is also a problem.

It is perfectly acceptable to position oneself as pro-choice as opposed to pro-abortion, but a pro-abortion stance is also valid, and should not be written off as a militant stance that wants all pregnancies aborted. It's like someone being pro-appendectomy; it doesn't mean that you think everyone should be getting appendectomies, but rather you are supportive of accessibility of necessary medical procedures and see them as a positive thing.

I think this pro-abortion stance, that an abortion is a medical procedure that is necessary and has a positive outcome, can be very healthy.

Here's an article I read awhile back that really influenced my feelings on the issue: http://www.salon.com/2015/04/24/i_am_...

In case you missed it, bell hooks answered many of our questions last week on her Facebook page, linked in Luke's comment above. Check it out!

Hi Kevin,

Thanks for the recommendation of Judith Butler. In the interest of organization, we do not allow individual threads for book suggestions. 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 academic texts, but please check first, as we will remove duplicate threads.

I do recall that there are threads in the Book Suggestions folder devoted to listing queer recommendation, so definitely check those out!

Locked and Archived

I'm going to jump into this some context about this quote. It is a single paragraph pulled from an entire chapter about being fat, the terminology and taboo of being fat, and related issues.

This particular passage is part of a section in which she discusses the experience of a friend of hers who was in rehab for bulimia, and describes the hierarchy within the rehab, and the ways in which addiction to drugs/alcohol are related to and compare with food-related addictions and medical issues. While perhaps within that quote she generalizes about the types of people who overeat, she certainly does not accuse fat people of "choosing" to overeat, and she never claims that all fat people are fat because they overeat. She does, however, identify herself as someone who spent much of her life overeating, something that is mentioned throughout the book.

I see how you drew those conclusions from this single paragraph, but at least from my reading, the chapter as a whole provides a bit more nuance and a covers a wider range of circumstances and issues. Perhaps others who have read the book will feel differently, though! I'll leave it up to them to determine if the chapter as a whole comes across as fatphobic.

Bunny wrote: "Katelyn wrote: "I was just considering, with the difference between how individuals understand their own genders/anatomies, in a hypothetical world without gender, how might individuals with differ..."

Yes! Doesn't that sound lovely? I read some of the comments on the YouTube video posted by Haydée, and someone pointed out in the comments that there is also a difference between how gender is applied to people/bodies and how it is applied elsewhere, to actions, objects, behaviors, etc. I think this is interesting... If we ceased labeling things by gender, how would that then reflect on us? How would gender be reproduced through our actions, if actions were no longer gendered? Is gender an identity or is it performed? Is it both?
How would it change if we eliminated the binary and/or its application to things other than people?

Again, I digress a bit, but I think it's still related, so I'm not going to apologize quite yet ;)

Welcome! Glad to have you here!

Marie wrote: "why is everything nowadays seen as transphobic? according to basic biology there is men and there is woman and the thing that separates the two are vaginas and penises. if you are trans then that m..."

I'd argue that political correctness is a different issue from being respectful of people's dislike of certain uses of language. That being said, there are definitely instances when people are overly sensitive. But it is important to respect other's wishes and experiences. Another issue is when mainstream feminists decide what is problematic for marginalized groups to which they do not belong, which is part of the reason I think feminism has been developing that reputation, and why many people (as Marina points out in her second post here) choose not to identify as feminists despite agreeing with the stances in general. But we shouldn't confuse these issues with the legitimacy of trans folks' experiences, or those of women of color, or disabled women, etc.

Also, I think you are conflating gender and sex. Man and Woman are genders, not biological. And there aren't just vaginas and penises, there are also people born intersex.

You are welcome to specify goals for a topic that you create, but moderators cannot be responsible for members posting as they see fit, as we do not wish to censor.

That said,

Marina wrote: "If you haven't read the book, you can browse the quotes here on goodreads."

I'd remind everyone that pulling quotes out of context is not the best way to discuss a book. Additionally, perhaps it is best to allow members who have read the book (or are currently reading) to take the lead on discussions for this reason. It seems inappropriate to be scrolling through quotes on Goodreads, essentially going out of one's way to find quotes (out of context) that seem problematic. I would caution members against this. Especially if the OP is asking for minimal discussion/only reactions. Quotes that are misinterpreted will likely be challenged by members who did read the book and are aware of its larger context.

For example, I'd argue that regarding the first quote you list (and I'll keep this brief, since there is an entire thread about it already), though it is understandably objectionable to some, it does not seem like a fair criticism to say that serious historians wouldn't be claiming a "parallel history." She doesn't accuse historians of this, she merely suggests that her readers stop assuming that there is. And given the type of book this is, the number of serious historians reading the book would be relatively small. So it would be worthwhile to consider the audience that the book as a whole, and therefore this quote, is targeted for.

Haydée, thanks for the link. I'm a fan of Kat Blaque, but I hadn't seen this particular video. For this reason, I want to clarify my post in message 7. In no way did I mean to claim that we should have a gender-less society, and I also didn't mean to accuse trans folks of perpetuating the gender binary. I hope it didn't come across that way. I was just considering, with the difference between how individuals understand their own genders/anatomies, in a hypothetical world without gender, how might individuals with different relationships to those aspects of themselves differ in their identifications.

Just to reiterate, I find the accusation that trans folks are responsible for upholding the binary, or should be held to a higher standard of subverting the binary, to be unacceptable.

Pamela wrote: "Hi there! I am done with the book - when will the discussion begin? I joined the club when it first started but haven't been able to keep up until now... I would love to join in on the good talks! ..."

Pamela, you can find discussions in the Apr—How to Be a Woman folder. Participate in topics that have already been started, or if you have something else you want to discuss, start your own!

Hi Meghan, there is already a post for Emma's birthday 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.
Also, for future reference, the Special Announcement and Announcements folders are reserved for Our Shared Shelf-specific announcements from Emma and the moderator team.

Locked and archived