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

Katelyn’s comments from the Our Shared Shelf group.

I haven't read it, but I read a review of it and apparently it not only reinforces the gender stereotypes, it is also a hot mess as far as the writing and editing are concerned. I find it incredibly humorous that something like that was published, and not just on fanfiction.net.

Roxana, I think those are good points. I just want to point out that there are many women that find themselves under circumstances that take a toll on their self confidence, are unable to stand up for themselves, and lack the self-respect that you mention here. And I'm really only thinking in reference to Western women, in relation to Bella. That being said, I don't think Bella's circumstances justify her behavior and lack of self-respect, as you put it. While I imagine falling in love with a member of what is essentially a different species can be rather trying, she makes no attempt to think deeply or introspectively about what is going on, and I think that leads to her multiple poor and reckless decisions.

Jessica wrote: "Should men be apart of feminism is really a question that should be addressed by individual men. There are definitely men who show more affinity for feminism than others. Still, as a non- feminist ..."

Jessica, this is because the feminist tradition has to do with women's voices being heard! Historically we are underrepresented and silenced, and what you see as telling men what to do (related to the "bossy" problem that women face), is really just demanding the respect that we have been denied in the past.

Furthermore, your assessment of how women and men communicate is reductive and makes assumptions that harm both genders. It is not productive to assume that women only perceive that they are being disrespected because they don't understand the language that men use. Frankly, it suggests in an indirect way that women's communication is ineffective and inferior. If men and women communicate differently, and men typically have the best jobs and salaries, that sends a message that their method of communication is superior, and that's simply untrue.

Any gender stereotypes about the ways that men and women communicate are perpetuated and reinscribed constantly by patriarchy. This does not implicate men, rather cultural systems that have taught women since birth what they are worth (their bodies, reproductive role, childrearing, but primarily not their minds). So perhaps your assessment of miscommunication between men and women is accurate in your experience, but that doesn't make it right. We need to overcome these gender-based assumptions. Human beings have evolved and developed technology to a point that evidences that determination based on biology is no longer necessary and simply inaccurate. Even if these stereotypes were natural, human beings have proven that we no long need to rely on what is natural, and women in particular have proven this time and time again. As it stands, however, these assumptions about gender roles are almost entirely culturally constructed, which means they can also be demolished.

Yes, I think that would be very helpful!

My only concern would be that by choosing books for the entire year, it we might be missing out on new releases that are topical and immediately relevant. Then again, newer books tend to be more expensive and nearly impossible to get secondhand. This just crossed my mind because the first book was quite new, so I thought that might have been intentional on Emma's part, to choose newer books that would be new to most people, rather than classics or older releases that would be repetitive for many. I also wonder if Emma plans to curate the list of books or if choosing will happen by another method. I guess we will see!

Glad you enjoyed it! I thought it might be worth while to discuss it, as well. I particularly liked that the interview focuses a bit on her mother. In the discussion topic for chapter one, many have expressed their disappointment that she didn't receive more focus from Steinem in the first chapter, although I think it mostly has to do with the travel theme for the book as a whole. Specifically, I think it is actually quite daring of Steinem to say outright that she attributes her mother's mental health troubles to patriarchy. It also helps listeners to understand what patriarchy means: she blames the system, not her father specifically, who she describes as "kind by utterly irresponsible."

I also thought she made an interesting point about what patriarchy means or can be defined as. She says that the patriarchy requires the control of human reproduction, and therefore women's bodies. I think that is a very astute point, especially coming directly out of her discussion of her own abortion and given the current headlines about abortion in the U.S.

Was there anything about the interview you found enlightening?

James, you don't have to agree with us and no one is forcing their beliefs down your throat here. You are describing patriarchy and the intentions of feminist who invoke it. We are explaining to you, based on our experiences and accumulated knowledge, what patriarchy actually is and represents. Instead of considering our thoughts, you throw out statistics without citing them, assuming you know how a large and diverse group of people feel about it. For example, I spent time writing a thoughtful explanation of patriarchy above, but you haven't responded at all to the points I made. Instead, you are repeating your own points without engaging with those of the others on this thread. I don't mean to call you out, but it's quite frustrating because the whole point of this group is to participate in a dialogue, which requires listening to others, and it doesn't feel like you are giving anyone else's thoughts a fair shot.

Patriarchy does not refer to specific men. It is a concept of a cultural construct that succinctly refers to the oppressive results of a society that has traditionally devalued femininity. It has also resulted in the labeling of certain characteristics and actions as gendered. Patriarchy also negatively affects men. Referencing patriarchy does not blame men, rather explains that combatting individual sexism is not enough. We must examine the larger systems in place that have perpetuated gender discrimination.

It's similar to the concept of white supremacy. Many white people feel defensive when that term is brought up, but it refers to a larger system rather than individuals.

I think most men who feel shamed by the use of the term patriarchy probably do not understand what it is actually meant to refer to. Of course there are those who abuse the term, but what I wrote above is the general meaning behind it, from what I've learned in my experiences, conversations with others, and women's history and gender studies classes. I hope that's helpful!

Jessica wrote: "It would be interested to see more men in the feminist movement just to see what their position would be in the structure. How much of a voice would they have? "

It's an interesting question. I think part of the bedrock of feminism is an attempt to lend female voices primacy, as we are historically and to this day so underrepresented in important areas of power. Like in the fight for LGBT rights in which heterosexual and cisgender persons are considered "allies", and are encouraged to support the movement without co-opting the voices of those that actually identify. But because gender discrimination is something that affects all genders, men have to be more than allies, because their issues need to be represented as well. I think it is important, however, that women retain control of their position in the movement because gender discrimination affects us disproportionately to men. Ideally, there would be a 50/50 ratio of men and women involved in the movement, representative of society itself. But because women are oppressed more than men on average, we need to make sure our voices are not overpowered by men (even those with good intentions) as they are in so many other areas of life.

And about your concept of inclusiveness, I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. That feminism does not accept people who don't agree with the aims of the movement? I think that generally speaking, the goal is for everyone to be a feminist, and those people choose not to be involved because they do not agree, as is there prerogative. If I am still misunderstanding, I apologize!

David, I think the book is less about the topic of equality itself, and more about the life of an inspiring woman, role model, feminist, activist. I imagine the chapters on her travels later in life will have more on the subject! But I also think the first chapter sheds some light on the issue even if it isn't mentioned outright.

Jessica wrote: "Katelyn wrote: "Jessica wrote: "Imo, no, feminism is not relevant. First because they aren't fighting for things that are already illegal. Second because they only see issues for other genders from..."

Yes, of course, the history of feminism has many, many moments of conflict with other minority groups. I don't think anyone who is informed on the matter would deny that. But despite this history, feminism has undergone many evolutions, and there are still issues that many of us are seeking to resolve.

Feminists are also a varied group of people like any other. Many are not inclusive. But who are you to tell a male feminist that the issues he is fighting for were not chosen by him? That's why we need more men in the conversation, and there are many other topics addressing this issue, with men and women alike participating in the discussion on how to resolve problems about male involvement. I mention the groups that I mention above because movements dedicated to specifically those issues overlap significantly with the feminist movement. Many feminists identify as LGBT, are black, etc. So I think it is rather presumptuous for someone to say that their goal in getting involved in feminism are not equally their own. For a lot of people, their decision to identify as feminists are deeply personal, and the way and individual practices feminism does not represent the entire movement, nor is it invalidated by the larger goals of the movement.

You may not want to participate in the movement, and you may disagree with methods, representation, goals, etc., and you are of course entitled to your opinion. Just because you don't agree with the feminist movement, does not make it irrelevant. As long as there are people who have goals to achieve that may be sought under the banner of feminism, it must be relevant.

Jessica wrote: "Imo, no, feminism is not relevant. First because they aren't fighting for things that are already illegal. Second because they only see issues for other genders from their paradigm rather than list..."

I think it would be useful for you to read the other responses on this topic, as many of them address some of your concerns.

Also, you refer to legality as a basis for your opinion of feminism, but to which legal system are you referring? Every country in the world has a different set of laws that reflect differing levels of gender discrimination. While you may not see this kind of bias happening around you in your daily life, for others globally, feminism is direly needed.

Patriarchy is a theoretical concept. It is a cultural construction that has been identified by feminists and scholars as an influence of societies' treatment of women.

Some feminism is not inclusive, but many of us condemn that version of feminism. If you click around this discussion board you will see topics about LGBT inclusion, black feminism, disability studies, men's issues, and intersectionality in general.

Ana wrote: "Katelyn you are totally right, you caught the whole purpose of the chapter and it was very easy to understand your point of view, I agree.
I just wished Steinem would have given her mother a littl..."

Yeah I see what you're saying. Sometimes in our discussion of individuals who have been oppressed, we strip them of their agency. Perhaps she could have gone into that a bit more, but I think she wanted to focus on her father's adventures more given the topic of the book as a whole. Although the concept that she discusses early on of the masculine adventurer and the sedentary female is evident in Steinem's first chapter.

Btw, I posted a topic about an interview Gloria Steinem gave on NPR's Fresh Air about this book, and while I don't remember in depth and have to listen again, I do recall Terry Gross asking her more about her mother. That might be of interest to you!

I saw The Danish Girl last week and enjoyed it. It has been getting mixed reviews from LGBT folks but if nothing else, it is beautiful to watch and interesting for its historical setting. Not to mention it's a true story, although it does neuter some of the more interesting facts about the artists' lives. While there were some cringe-worthy moments of "showing" the audience the main character's feminine side, I think it was quite a nice film.

I still need to see Carol and Suffragette.

I know there was already a thread about Star Wars: The Force Awakens that I haven't gotten around to reading yet, but I think its worth bringing up here as well! It might be one of the most feminist movies I've ever seen in the sense that gender is so irrelevant to Rey's success. So many strong, female characters are defined by past trauma, trauma that is usually gendered. Rey's trauma is having been left alone and making it on her own, and it's not gendered at all! I could go on. I just thought it was fabulous and I know a lot of young girls are thrilled about it.

I'm more of a TV watcher than a moviegoer, myself. Maybe it would be worthwhile to start a thread about feminist tv shows... (Jessica Jones, anyone? <3)

I see why that would be considered a bad example, but obviously it is taking place under fantastical circumstances just as you mentioned with Twilight. I guess I'd assume most people would prefer Katniss despite those events because it happens under circumstances that do not really reflect experiences that the audience would have, whereas one of Bella's defining features is how ordinary and normal her life is at the start of the story.

I think this debate is a good one, because there is good in bad in most media. And unless a book is defined in some way as feminist or anti-feminist, its not easy and many times it's probably inappropriate to label it. By which I mean that unless a piece of fiction deals blatantly with either feminism or anti-feminism, in the sense that it has characters who identify as such or something similar. But there are obviously fiction books out there that have strong feminist themes and those are the ones that book clubs like to read. I don't think that Twilight would be chosen based on those criteria by most feminist book clubs, especially because most clubs are populated mainly by adults who would likely be interested in more challenging material. But I don't think you should write off feminists who feel strongly about Twilight being problematic. Regardless of its merits and problems, there is plenty of other literature that is arguably more appropriate for a club like this to tackle.

Nia, you've said everything that I intended to but much more eloquently.

Veronica, I have to strongly disagree with your assessment of the books' depiction of depression. It is incredibly reductive and not at all productive. Bella is depressed, she is not diagnosed with depression. While events can trigger depression as an illness in people, her problems seem to disappear as soon as she gets what she wants. There is a major difference in this, and when people read Bella's depressed state as Depression in the sense of the condition, it suggests that people who suffer from depression are just sad, or are just having a hard time with something specific. Eventually, they'll just snap out of it! That's rarely the case, if it ever is, and people struggle with it their entire lives, even when they are at their most stable.

Like Nia said, perhaps in a vacuum Bella's choices can be seen as entirely her own, but because nothing can happen in a vacuum, Bella's story as it is presented to young women within the context of the many inequalities present in our society, often reinforces those inequalities.

People are going to take different things away from the same stories and that is okay. While the author may not have intended it to teach values to readers, it does whether or not she intends for it to. We learned and internalize messages from all media we consume, regardless of author intent and regardless of its truth. Especially when a book like this is marketing toward a younger audience, a time in their lives when they are navigating many of the same conflicts that Bella does (minus the supernatural elements), it is hard for those ideas not to translate into real life. Obviously, plenty of girls understand how the supernatural element changes the way characters behave and affects the relationships, but many have not developed that way of thinking. I think Twilight could have been much less of a problem for people if it had been marketed to a more mature audience, with some improvements in the writing and storytelling in order to achieve that. This would have avoided concerns about girls' understanding of the toxic relationships that are depicted in the story.

I haven't read Hunger Games or seen the movies so I can't comment on that, but Game of Thrones is meant for an adult audience that wants to read adult content. It also takes place in a fantastical land resembling a Medieval world while Twilight and many other YA novels either take place in the real world or are meant to somehow reflect the feelings and experiences of young people in new contexts. I don't think that's a fair comparison.

Edit: I didn't see Ana's post before writing mine. I forgot about the motorcycle thing... oy vey. And you're right about her being Mormon. I think it's reflected especially in the book's handling of sexuality and sexual activity. I always found it kind of creepy that it became such an important part of a story about teenagers, minors, actually. I don't necessarily think that young people shouldn't be reading about sexual situations, but I think the way that marriage is contingent to the discussion of sex in the books sends a very conservative and oppressive message to the young people reading.

I want to preface my post by saying I agree with you, feminists who make claims about how someone absolutely shouldn't read a certain books or consume other types of media because of its lack of feminist content is rude and problematic. You are entitled to read and enjoy whatever books that you like!

I read Twilight for the first time when I was in high school, I guess not too long after it first came out. I enjoyed it and then put it on my shelf to gather dust because it wasn't something I felt very strongly about.

I re-read them a few years ago because of all the hate that I'd been reading/hearing about. I knew that many of the criticisms were substantiated, but wanted to make sure I formed my own opinion. After reading a second time when I was older and had a better grasp of feminist issues, I found many of the messages in the book to be rather toxic.

Generally speaking, I have a hard time seeing Bella as a strong character. While making choices based on a man is not necessarily a bad thing, I do think it sends a bad message to young women (the target audience of the series) when the protagonist's life cannot move forward in any kind of independent way. Depression is, of course, an issue that many of us face, but the depiction of it in the books was reductive and reduced Bella's entire life to a single moment when a man left her behind (to "protect her," mind you, whether she knew it at the time or not!). I can't support a female character that has plenty of opportunities and privileges in life but cannot conceive of a reason to live beyond a man. Unless it is an abuse narrative, which was clearly not the intention of the author, it is really quite bad for women.

The final book in the series purports to "strengthen" Bella, but on a symbolic level, she is only able to achieve that strength through the actions and guidance of the man in question.

The only part of the books that comes to mind as remotely feminist to me is Rosaleigh's backstory.

That being said, it is absolutely 100% okay to read and enjoy Twilight. I would be remiss if I did not say that while reading, I found the plot engaging. It is wrong to tell someone it is not okay to read something. I cannot agree myself, however, that it is in any way feminist.

EDIT: I also think it is unfair to label any kind of feminism as "I hate Twilight" feminism. It is unlikely that it will come up very much in this group, I'd imagine, and anyway, we shouldn't be defining anyone or any movement based on their opinions of a single thing.

Eilidh wrote: "The way I understood this was that the father got to "have it all" as it were - the wife, the kids, fulfilling his dreams - but her mother had to sacrifice her dreams in order for him to achieve th..."

Yes, I agree with that. While her mother made a clear choice to prioritize family, based on some of the things Steinem quotes her as having said later in life suggest that she regretted the fact that that choice was necessary at all.

My immediate thought was of Betty Friedan's The Feminine Mystique, as her mother's story seems to share a great deal with the women discussed by Friedan. If I'm doing the math correctly, however, Steinem's mother doesn't belong to that particular decade of housewifery, so I must say it seems that it had more to do with Steinem's father's needs being prioritized here. Obviously this fits into a historical devaluing of women's needs and wants at that time, but the differences in desired lifestyles was very extreme.

I actually don't think the chapter was "all over the place," as some have said. I don't think the narrative is meant to tell her father's story, rather it is attempting to tell the story of how she came to a greater understanding of her father's impact on her. So while it does jump back and forth in time here and there, I think it has more to do with how those events in his life fit into her personal journey.

I loved how she ended with those letters. The one from Dr. Peebles made me cry!

My main criticism so far is that she tends to make some claims about universality here and there that I think are somewhat unsubstantiated. About how we're meant to travel because of our ancient ancestors, and the "ontogeny of breath"... I found those moments to be a bit contrived and definitely romanticized. While she acknowledges her privilege (mostly indirectly) in one or two places, the aforementioned moments really rub me the wrong way because it leaves a large portion of the world's population out of what she claims is some kind of universal human characteristic or experience. I'm going to keep an eye out for more instances of this as a I go along!

Overall I really enjoyed the chapter. Her childhood was incredibly interesting. I wish she had included the photo of her on the Gary Cooper set!

Eden wrote: "Speaking of biphobia and bi-erasure, a quick sidenote:
ending up with one gender or having a long-term relationship with one gender doesn't mean you aren't or can't be bisexual (/pansexual). This ..."

Yeah absolutely. And my choice not to identify has less to do with the fact of my relationship and more to do with my beliefs about the binary and my own concern about co-opting the LGBT umbrella label given the privileges afforded to me from the circumstances of my life.

Savannah, I'm sorry to hear about your experience. I read an article by someone discussing demisexuality and the comments section was rife with LGBT-identifying folks criticizing her, accusing her identification as a bid for attention, or a desire to be "special." It really is a shame. Demisexuality is something I can relate to for sure, and I think it's extremely valid. I think there is some anxiety in the community about "sexualities" that don't refer to a description of what type of person one is attracted to. But I think there needs to be room for people who feel strongly about the ways that they experience sexuality.

Ed wrote: "All I see here is fancy words and facts which were heard once, but not checked. when you write something always add a link with a study or research, which would strengthen your point. I am not sayi..."

I think within a community of like-minded individuals discussing the finer points of an issue, it is not necessarily imperative that we cite every claim that we make. Links are useful when someone calls into question a particular fact or figure, and I like to provide them when someone asks for more information or if I just think the more in-depth information might be interesting to someone. But we're not here to have a formal debate, just a friendly discussion. Perhaps if there is interest in participating in more formal debates, someone could create a topic for that. Or we could create a topic for organizing links to substantiated evidence of answers to common question about feminism. That might actually be useful for those of us who want to bring these discussions to others who may not share our same interest in the issue!

For me, it sometimes depends on the genre! I read more academic texts than fiction, and oftentimes a professor will assign a book per week or more, so it's necessary to read them all concurrently. Not to mention they can be very dense, so alternating can be helpful for my brain. Now I'm not currently in school, but I still tend to read at least two books at a time out of habit, otherwise I get too bogged down by a single text.

I also tend to have different books for different times of the day, based on content and medium. If I am reading on my kindle, I switch to a physical book within an hour of bedtime to wind down and rest my eyes.

I don't like to read more than one fiction book at a time because with all my other reading, it takes awhile to get through them (I'm talking weeks or even months) so if I read more than one, I can get plots and characters confused. Sometimes I'll get sucked into a book and binge it in one fell swoop, but that hasn't happened to me in awhile. I think I just don't have the time, so I don't let myself get too invested :(