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

Katelyn’s comments from the Our Shared Shelf group.

So exciting! I'm thrilled that bell hooks will be answering some questions :)

Here is what I'm interested in hearing more about form her:

Our Shared Shelf has sparked in me an interest in the nature of the internet and community love. Firstly, I wonder if the advent of social media and online dating has exacerbated the problem you identify, in the chapter on honesty, of false selves as sabotaging the path to love, in the way that individuals carefully curate profiles that present their “best selves” or perhaps falsified versions of themselves?

On that note, there is a common criticism that the internet has caused us to become more anti-social, as our interactions with others are increasingly from behind a screen. Do you agree with this criticism? On the other hand, what would you say about the many communities that have formed (for example, Our Shared Shelf), especially for oppressed groups (LGBTQ+ communities, particularly for youth; those struggling with mental health or social anxiety; etc.) and affinity communities (dedicated to creative pursuits, hobbies, interests, etc., that may not be accessible in their everyday lives)? Does the above criticism discourage connections that can be made across the globe, via the internet, that could potentially encourage empathy across boundaries of geography, nationality, race, gender, class, etc.?


Thanks to Emma and bell hooks for making this Q&A possible. Looking forward to the responses!

Fiza wrote: "So I've been meaning to raise this concern and/or observation for a while. This thread sort of resonates with my own observations. I don't mean to offend, so don't be.

First of all is the selecti..."

Just to chime in, Emma has so far been choosing the books each month mostly independently. The reasons for her choices are shared with the club with each announcement, and are informed by members' concerns and recommendations. For example, April's book choice, which is available in many translations and has been set at a lower price across platforms, was partially informed by the lack of access that many members had to the March selection.

I'd also point out that February's book, The Color Purple by Alice Walker, is also a non-"white feminism" book, making 2/4 selections by non-white authors. The plan is to continue to diversify the selections. Keep in mind that many concerns are being juggled here: diversity and accessibility primary among them, and these are often at odds.

And just want to add: If I come off as defensive, I don't mean to be. I just want to make sure you all know that we are very much aware of the concerns of members, and I wanted to address those points specifically.

To address the topic of the thread: accusations of "fake feminism" are ridiculous, in my opinion, and even more so when they are used to silence someone. Criticism is important, but to write someone off entirely is unfortunate. I'm not familiar with the particular campaign being discussed, but it seems to me that while it may be contingent on standards of beauty, lightening skin with regards to scars and dark spots is not necessarily counter to feminist aims.

I know that a lot of people have read this book before, so I'm opening up this discussion thread right away, as I usually do at the beginning of the month.

Any advice for those of us reading for the first time?

Andrea wrote: "Just finished it, after downloading it into my kindle.

Spoilers.......



2/3 of it seemed more rambling. The other 1/3 were funny parts that were thrown in (puberty), as well as bravery (abortion..."

Hi Andrea, in the future, please use spoiler tags, especially when we haven't officially started discussion of this book (which will officially open on April 1st).

Generally, let's hold off until April on posting our thoughts on the book in specifics, so that everyone can commence the discussion together with book in hand! Thanks!

My original intent with my post about body acceptance was in response to the use of the phrase body acceptance by the OP. It was just to point out that if we want to discuss the broader issue of that and all that comes with it, just a reminder that there are a lot of ways that a woman's (or man's) body can be considered wrong by society.

Didn't mean to derail from the focus on fatphobia!

Danielle, thanks for letting us know. I'm going to archive this because an announcement has already been posted about the discount being offered across platforms by the publisher.

Locked and archived

I commented on the video but I'll post here too:

Having just finished All About Love: New Visions yesterday, this covers similar ground in the way of self love and fear.

I am also reminded of this quote from the Netflix show Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt, in which the main character, imprisoned as a girl in a bunker, is forced to turn a crank for long lengths of time. Kimmy says: "You can stand anything for ten seconds. Then you just start on a new ten seconds."

Thank you for sharing your thoughts!

I agree with what you've said. The religious perspective offered here definitely creates a sense of bias. At least from my point of view, mentioning religion automatically puts me on defense, not because I have a problem with it personally, but I often find that when people use their own religion to make arguments, things become more personal and less objective. In All About Love: New Visions, hooks seemed to hover on the edge of that (for me, at least). It's obviously personal, not just because of the inclusion of religious ideas but also anecdotes from her life. But I found the religious references generally critical, much in the same way that I found references to self help literature. I also found that the vagueness with which she handled the religious ideas allowed me to translate the concepts for my own purposes (praying=journaling, stuff like that).

There is definitely a pattern in all of the chapters, and a lot of repetition. I noticed especially in the chapters on abuse and healing that there was a lot of repetition of specific positive affirmations, which to me seemed to function as an attempt at curing the misconceptions she identifies about love. I thought it was an interesting and useful device. I'd be interested in how other people interpreted the patterns!

Hi everyone, there's already a Denver meet up thread here: https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

In the interest of organization, we archive duplicate posts. In order to avoid this in the future, please check if the topic you are creating already exists by using the search function to the right of the discussion board.

Locked and archived.

I am in agreement with everyone's thoughts thus far, but also wanted to point out that thin privilege is only extended to certain kinds of "thin." Many women receive negative attention for being "too skinny" or "boyish," which is harmful on its own but even worse for those whose body types are a result of illness, medical conditions, or other issues.

Then, body image issues are applied to men in a different way as well, and while they are typically under less scrutiny than women, there are still a lot of problems with men being too fat or too skinny.

Not meaning to derail from the specific issue of fatphobia, but I just wanted to point out that thin privilege is not necessarily enjoyed by everyone who falls into the category of thin.

Henriette wrote: "I've made arrangements with a user to send her my copy. It seems I can't delete or update my previous post right now."

Are you on the app? You can only delete/edit posts on the desktop version of the website.

I was going to post this in the topic Not Feeling It, but I think this might be an interesting enough discussion on its own and I didn't want to derail that thread. But it is in response to many of the reactions to the book in that topic, so I encourage those who have not read through it yet to check out what members have been saying over there!

Here's a quote from page 154 that I think helps shed some light on hooks's use of gender role stereotypes in this book. She's referring to the typical sexism of self-help literature:

"Rather than linking habits of being, usually considered innate, to learned behavior that helps maintain and support male domination, they act as though these differences are not value laden or political but are rather inherent and mystical."

It seems that many members are reading this book as if it is part of the literature that she references here, but I think her intention is to critique these writings and the stereotypes that they uphold.

My interpretation was that the book relies on the assumption that readers are aware of and agree with the patriarchal expectations of men and women, and these are what she spends much time discussing, but many are interpreting this as her own assumptions rather than the gender roles that are maintained by patriarchy ("learned behavior that helps maintain and support male domination").

I am curious, then, about how she may have accomplished this better? This book is written in a more "popular" style than a lot of her other work (from what I understand, only having read excerpts in the past), so I wonder what her target audience is for the book. I would have assumed it was people much like us, the members of this group, but what is it about the book that seems to be missing so many of us?

Or maybe I'm completely wrong about her intentions, but having read interviews and excerpts in the past, I'm certain that her use of stereotypical "male" and "female" behaviors is not based in personal beliefs that they are correct or natural.

Anyway, I thought this might be a worthwhile discussion ;)

Kodak wrote: "I haven't put a pic of my shelfie recently, really must do that ;D"

Yes, you must!

We will be discussing All About Love: New Visions by bell hooks on Sunday, April 3rd, 2–4 pm at our usual location, the Argo Tea at 16 W. Randolph St. in the Loop.

Hope to see some more faces there!

And don't forget to join our Facebook group, which is where we've been organizing meet up times: https://www.facebook.com/groups/16803...

Thanks for sharing Alia! I am going to change the title of the thread to Transgender Authors and Books, and people can be invited to add onto the list you've shared. Hope that's okay!

Amy, post your request in the Pay It Forward thread if you haven't already :)

darcy wrote: "Katelyn wrote: "Nora wrote: "I think that this was a poor choice, Emma. I've never read the book, but I was of course curious so I read some reviews. They are mostly very, very poor reviews. I won'..."

That's all valid!

I wouldn't necessarily assume that criticisms won't be at the forefront. Members have been rather critical of bell hooks's book this month, so there isn't a trend of people saying they liked the book just because Emma chose it. And generally speaking, we've been leaving discussion loosely structured in an effort to give members the freedom to criticize or praise the books as they see fit, so I wouldn't take Emma's personal opinions as a representation of what the discussions will be on the forum here in April.

I hope that helps and gives hope for a constructive debate rather than a bland acceptance of the material.

And I'll say again that I'm in no way trying to influence people's decision not to read the book. Any choice not to do so is totally valid.

Unfortunately, once Emma has announced the book, it is unlikely to be changed, so my suggestions were simply to suggest ways that we can still read the book in a way that is beneficial and worthwhile despite any problems it might have (and I haven't read the book yet myself, so I'm just going off responses here and reviews that I have read).

Aglaea wrote: "S. K. wrote: "Haydée wrote: "And the answer to Sandras question "Why isn’t the male body considered to be inherently sexual?": Becuase in our culture women are the oppressed group, not men. It is n..."

Yup, women have been socialized to keep our sexual thoughts and feelings to ourselves. Men have been socialized to express them freely (or at least more freely). It is all socialization. If men are "animals," then women are as well. So we can either require women to cover up, or we can socialize men to be respectful.

Modesty is still a completely legitimate choice, and I don't mean to knock anyone's beliefs. But any claims that men are more sexually motivated or visually stimulated is simplistic and incorrect.

Any requirements, religious or otherwise, that force women to dress a certain way are motivated by a desire to maintain a status quo, when the solution should be to overturn the hierarchy (like I said above, teaching men to be respectful would be a start). And again, I'm referring to requirements, not individual choices! The fact of the matter is that these cultural norms are not going to change overnight, so women who feel more confident dressing modestly should absolutely do so.

Thanks for posting! Exciting stuff!

Bunny wrote: "S. K. wrote: "The study cited in the article you linked to is the first study I've seen that casts doubt on a belief that I have long cherished. I didn't get much further than the abstract, but tha..."

That book sounds fascinating, add it to the shelf if you haven't already!
How to Suggest a Book