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

Katelyn’s comments from the Our Shared Shelf group.

I think it's impractical for feminists to expect to agree unanimously on all issues. Besides, who's to say which issues are "innately" feminist?

The most important thing, in my opinion, is to be open to new ideas, to feel comfortable having your ideals challenged, and to accept that people will feel differently about various things. Supporting another woman's choices and beliefs (assuming they are not hurting others in some way), even when they do not align with your own, is inherently feminist, perhaps especially feminist.

With regards to abortion and other contentious topics, I hold the opinion that as long as one is not attempting to impose one's personal beliefs about it on another person, then it does not conflict with identification as a feminist.

Some people think that in order to achieve anything, feminists need to be defined by a specific set of beliefs, but I find that rather absurd. There is no monolithic feminist experience, so this would be impossible. We can work together despite out differences, and I think embracing those differences is how we can achieve the most!

Hi Ryan! Happy Valentine's Day! There's already a Valentine's Day thread here.

Also, in future, note that the Announcements folder is generally for announcements from Emma and the Moderation team specifically about Our Shared Shelf.

Locking and Archiving

Aglaea wrote: "Because we have very different ideas of what is appropriate, offensive, and so on, I'd rather suggest checking reader reviews - since we are on Goodreads after all - as quite a few people, who are ..."

I agree that this is probably the best strategy. Unless it is a very new book, there are ways to find out the content "rating" with a quick google search. Plenty of places that give an overview of the content without spoilers.

James wrote: "My name is James Carroll, and I am happy to announce I have supported HeForShe. This submission occurred on Valentine’s Day today, but you can guess what time which is when I was born. I am an albi..."

Hi James, welcome to Our Shared Shelf! In the interest of keeping things organized (because we have so many members), we encourage new topics to only be made for completely new topics.

You can introduce yourself here.

Follow the directions here to make book suggestions related to the mission of the book club.

Locking and Archiving

Ryan wrote: "Good role models are a myth. Popular history loves to idolize certain individuals. Here are two examples:
A. George Washington chopped down his father's cherry tree but was forthright about it with..."

You can admire someone as a role model without agreeing with everything they said and did, or emulating everything they say and do. That doesn't mean that "role models are a myth." In fact, I am far more critical of my role models than others, because I come to expect more from them, and in this vein, I am aware of their flaws. We must criticize our role models in order to be even better ourselves. And regardless of whether someone is a personal role model, those who wield power and influence should be held accountable for what they say and do, and should be able to defend those actions and words. Mistakes can be made, but that doesn't mean we sweep it under the rug. We consider, critically, the implications. That is one of the ways that we can overcome and move forward.

Kelseigh wrote: "I'm a Sanders supporter and will be voting for him in the primary, because he actually acknowledges that there is more to women's rights than reproductive justice and has been consistent in his sup..."

Bernie isn't anti-capitalist, though. He believes in achieving equality within the capitalist structure. He's not going to be dismantling our economy... even if he had plans to do so, there's no way anything like that could happen. He's just devoted to creating social programs to support those who are at a disadvantage in a "rigged" economy. He just wants to un-rig it :)

I remember a couple of years ago, when I would hear disrespectful and ignorant comments at bars, I would feel uncomfortable, and therefore laugh. Y'know, the kind of "omg I'm so uncomfortable" laugh. But most of these people, in their ignorance, took that as a cue that I was in agreement, or that I found their comments funny.

More recently, I've had to allow myself the right to be angry. Sure, it's not appropriate in every situation, but for me, I've stopped caring about other people's feelings, because these kinds of people certainly aren't concerned about mine. The only "inappropriate" situation I still honor are ones in which I feel that speaking my mind will result in danger. If I'm alone, or relatively, and a man is a potential physical threat. But if I feel comfortable, I speak my mind and allow myself to get angry. I don't care if he means well, and I don't care if he's generally a good person. All I know about a stranger in a bar are the things he says, and if these are the ideas he says, then it doesn't matter if he's otherwise kind.

I realize this isn't right for everyone, so I don't mean to invalidate anyone else's experiences or strategies. But I completely agree—I'm fed up! Our anger is not invalid, it is not hysterical. It is legitimate. So I do my best to calmly refute these kinds of statements. Although I've definitely yelled at people in the past, as well ;)

Colm wrote: "But wait. Aren't women allowed to make mistakes? Just now more pressure is being put on prominent women than for a long time. Men have been making catastrophic mistakes involving many millions of lives for so long and too little is said about it."

Sure, women can make mistakes, but we should still hold influential women accountable for what they say, because their words hold a lot of weight. I would have laughed at her "joke" if she had apologized sincerely, but the apology was just as condescending as the original statement. So I can't laugh. And she's not a comedian, anyway.

As a woman, I feel more strongly than ever that the few women who do find themselves in position of power should be scrutinized. I don't think that's sexist. I'm not saying that we should criticize what they wear or their social lives, but because patriarchy (thus far) prevents equal representation for women, the few who represent me and my interests better not be lazy about the things they do and say! And while history perhaps forgives men for their screw ups, let's remember that history has been written by men, which is telling. I try to be equally critical of all political figures regardless of gender. But when a woman role model with significant influence makes comments specifically about the issue of feminism that are counterproductive and frankly problematic, I am particularly upset, especially when their apologies are so weak.

I'll say again that most of my feelings about this are directed at Albright. I think Steinem is mostly genuine in that she misspoke. I just wish she would elaborate on what she actually meant, rather than brushing it off with a "you misunderstood."

Moved to "Helpful Resources and Group Ideas"

Erin wrote: "Controversy over Steinem and Albright - Everyone needs to get off their high horse - if you see the Albright video, it's hilarious - it's a damn joke. Tosh.O makes a gang rape joke and it took him ..."

Erin, we're trying to keep this thread on topic, meaning questions for Emma to ask Gloria Steinem at the event on February 24th. Debating other members' questions is not productive in this context. There is a discussion of this topic where you can contribute your thoughts and continue the conversation here: Gloria Steinem on "Why Young Women Are Siding With Bernie Sanders"

Because this thread is for a specific purpose, and all of these questions and comments are going to have to be sorted through by Emma and her team, let's please remain on topic.

Men: Notes from an Ongoing Investigation

I've not read Laura Kipnis's Men, and not sure that I will, but I think it is probably just what you're looking for. Her contrarian style can sometimes be frustrating (something I found in my read of her earlier book The Female Thing—you can find my review of that on my profile), but overall she's fun to read and brings up very interesting points that others avoid (perhaps) for fear of being deemed controversial.

Ashley *Hufflepuff Kitten* wrote: "Mary wrote: "I'm late to this party, but loving this thread! I have a few things to add, but mostly just commenting so I can follow more easily from here on out. :)

Cecilia, Re: your comments rega..."

Hey Ashley, might want to add in Spoiler tags in case people haven't gotten that far yet ;)

I agree in particular about your point about Catelyn!

Astrid wrote: "Tim wrote: "Katelyn wrote: "Jane wrote: "In some defense of Madeleine Albright (although I, too, am disappointed by the comment), she was riffing off something she is famous for saying. "There is a..."

Yeah, I meant "too long; didn't read", because I was rambling a bit haha

Aha! Gotcha! Well, I think Feminism folder is the best place for it, then :)

Carry on, all!

I agree that there is a big difference in how we apply the word "strong" to men and women. I've always seen the word "strong" when used in this context to be more abstract, and not really to do with physical strength.

For me, "strong", when applied to any individual that is part of a marginalized group, refers to strength of character and perseverance. Someone who has "overcome" something (as others have mentioned) or should be admired.

When someone uses the word "strong" in the context of a white man, I think of physical strength.

I think it's my own bias assuming that the former example(s) of individuals are valued more (within my liberal sensibilities) for their non-physical strengths. While I subconsciously fail to recognize that white men has their own individual battles to "overcome." So both of these concepts is wrong.

Given systemic inequality, however, the word "strong" has been discursively produced in the way people use and understand it everyday. It's unavoidable, we do this with words, concepts, etc., constantly.

I think in this specific case, however, it would be beneficial to overcome the perceived rhetorical restrictions on how that word applies to different individuals.

btw, a similar convo is happening in this thread about how the "strong female character" stereotype is used in literature and analyses in literature. I recommend reading through that as well (it gets a bit specific and spoilery toward the end, and I am one of the culprits of perpetuating that trend... feel free to veer us back on topic if you want haha)

Savannah wrote: "Ash wrote: "Moved to "Book Suggestions" section.""

I had moved it to the Feminism section as it became more of a discussion than a list of book suggestions. I still kind of think it fits better there. I may have forgotten to indicate that when I did so, so sorry about that! I'm gonna go ahead and move it back, we're not really suggesting books on this threads as much as discussing the concept of "strong female characters".

Sorry for any confusion, to other mods and also people watching this thread bounce all over the place ^_^

Jane wrote: "In some defense of Madeleine Albright (although I, too, am disappointed by the comment), she was riffing off something she is famous for saying. "There is a special place in hell for women who do n..."

I don't think that the fact that she is well known for repeating the original quote at all excuses the way she used it in this context. It's just so tone deaf! Hillary Clinton doesn't NEED anyone's help! She's running for freaking president! I love the sentiment that women absolutely must help other women, but to me that means people that actually need help. It's such a ridiculous idea that voting for another candidate, for whatever reason, should be condemnable. It is anti-democratic. Honestly, all she did was put the focus back on Hillary the individual, and it feeds into stereotypes about how badly Hillary "wants it" and "it's her turn!" I am not a Clinton supporter, but if I were, this statement would upset me even more. Women should not be voting for Hillary in order to help her in her mythical quest for the presidency (I'm being sarcastic, as that's how she's portrayed so often in the media), they should be voting for the best candidate to help ALL women.
I just... UGH. Even if she's not aware of the heated debates happening on the internet, she's a smart lady. Aside from all that, there are so many logical problems with that statement.

Kellie wrote: "Didn't we all just read her book?..."

Yes, and I'm also familiar with Steinem's wider body of work. Like I said, I'm inclined to forgive her given the circumstances around her statement, but I think her apology was pretty lame and it would have been more beneficial for her to elaborate... or simply to admit it was a stupid, poor attempt at a joke! There are so many women looking up to her, and to just say "you misunderstood. Sorry, I misspoke," does nothing to clarify her thoughts on the issue. I would love to hear her give a well-thought out response to the question that Maher asked her: "Why does she think millennial women are flocking to Sanders?" Her perspective on this would be so interesting! I hope she takes opportunity in the future to address this in a productive way.

While I don't disagree that we should give her the benefit of the doubt, as I think you are suggesting, we also need to remember that there is a generational difference here (as others have pointed out). As a result, she has been on the wrong side of history many times over the lengthy career. I'm not saying she should be condemned for past points of view, because she has mostly caught up with the times and has apologized for past stances (for example, on transgender issues, although she also participates in what many are calling out as transphobic humor in the same Maher interview), but I think it is extremely important that feminists are skeptical at all times. We cannot afford to assume that someone's thoughts were "just a joke" or "taken out of context" when they've exhibited faulty understanding of evolving issues in the past. It is okay to continue to respect and admire someone even if you don't agree with everything they believe or have said.

tl;dr: I think it is okay to forgive Steinem for her misstatements, but I think it's imperative that we be critical regardless of our admiration for a certain figure.

Lilia wrote: "I no longer am interested in reading a book by someone who has lost hope in younger women."

Like I said above, it is okay to admire and appreciate someone and her work even if you don't agree with everything she has done and said! I encourage you to read the book, it's absolutely worth it. I don't think you should write off Gloria Steinem for one statement. You can enjoy and engage even while remaining skeptical :)

Terena wrote: "The Equal Rights Amendment was a topic during the GOP debate. Same boring argument about women being drafted. Yawn"

I know! So ridiculous! I believe it was Jeb who reminded everyone that discussion of drafts is entirely hypothetical and that there would not be another draft. Like... come on! How is that still being debated??

Kelly wrote: "Unfortunately, a lot of people believe it was ratified. When I taught at a women's college, this would often come up, and the students couldn't believe it was not law. And the discussion surroundin..."

I've noticed this in classes, as well. I once got into a fierce debate with someone about whether or not it was ratified. We didn't have computers and weren't allowed to use phones in class, but I had to end up just demanding she look it up online when she got home. So frustrating.

Are there any memorable anecdotes from those discussions about why it's not been ratified?

Good point, Kori. It's so important to consider how a story like this one can perpetuate stereotypes. How do we discuss these (potentially problematic) facets of the book without invalidating the experiences of the victims of the story? It's a delicate balance.

I'm not far enough into the book to feel comfortable making any assertions about that, but I'm going to be careful to give it more thought as I continue.

Viktoriya wrote: "I think it might be even easier for not native speakers to read the book, as we read and understand it from the context."

That's a good point. And when learning a new language, there's a lot more "sounding out" that native speakers may not do as much, and that's been a crucial method for me to understand certain parts of The Color Purple.