Pam’s Comments (group member since Dec 29, 2016)

Pam’s comments from the Our Shared Shelf group.

So beautifully put Ximena. Thank you for sharing

Just a note: Sabrina Mahfouz, the editor behind The Things I Would Tell You came out with a new play recently: A History of Water in the Middle East. A History of Water in the Middle East

Amanda wrote: ". .It's okay for a woman who's heavily involved in a man's life to be independent or dare to disagree, but it seems like sometimes if it's a complete stranger (or in this case a fictional character), then they're entitled to call her out for her diva behavior."

Or, In this case and probably many others, behavior that doesn't have the woman deferring to the guy. Yeahhhhhh.

It was media for me as well.

I remember staying up late to watch ER, a tv show in the 90's about doctors working in the emergency room, and I remember that my dad was very angry at the boss doctor who happened to be female. (Looked it up, character was Kerry Weaver)

To me, a young child, who couldn't really follow much of the story line, it seemed like she was the only character who wasn't sneaking off for some hanky panky and the only one who was taking charge of the chaos. So I couldn't understand why this person who I respected so much would call her a *itch.

To me, as a one of 6 children- five of them being girls, it really stuck with me how someone who I loved and respected more than anything else, who spoke very highly about his aspirations for all of my sisters and I to become strong, independent women, would swear at the one person who I saw in the media who was a caregiver unlike most women I saw AND who was the boss.

It didn't compute.

Gerd wrote: " ".e. the question in as how far she could have legally binding expectations to have her contract renewed and in how far an employer is in a legal position then to use an employee's private life against them."

Someone probably put a bug in her head about how she could sue the company or shame them. People are stupid when their emotions flare.

On another note: I want to review this line that really spoke to me. It's kinda of a long rambling reflection from a cis woman that is more of an "Ah-ha" moment than adding anything to this discussion. So feel free to skip.

---------------------------

As a cis women, feminism to me is going to be biased toward what I know and live until I know better about things outside of my perspective. And what I know and what I have been learning about for the past 3+ years is how much historic feminism had and still has to fight for seats at the table. Biological woman - white, black, Asian, Native, etc, are still not paid as much. Intersectionality and the multi facets that affect our life. Cultural Appropriation and decolonization. We are still fighting against MRAs, for MeToo and against Rape Culture, Period stuff, etc etc etc.

This is the proverbial ground that I am defending for women; but what I am also doing - I'm noticing- is also acting like a gatekeeper. A "bouncer" of who or what I deem to be feminists and if they are allowed into this community that I feel a part of.

I read Fierce Femms, understood the stories put forward. But found myself sympathizing more on Thom's rapes than on her experience as being trans. Again, my knowledge is on the MeToo movement, I only have a cursory understanding of the trans-community or life.

It's akin to watching Star Wars and knowing that Jedi and Sith have lightsabers, but only when you dive into the lore and understand it better do you understand the symbolism of blue, green, and yellow lightsabers are different. Knowing this fact doesn't diminish your first impression, but knowing about it can deepen the experience and your understanding of all of the cultural cues.

So Yeah, I skimmed the article and was kinda on the side of JK. Live your life, do your thing, pick a pronoun, but don't kick women out of their jobs.

And then I read this part:
"JK Rowling's tweet offers insights to what trans antagonist rich white cis women think trans women are all about – dressing up and trying to have sex. As if its a perversion, deviance or fetish. Its archaic as much as ignorant. — Bolli Grinchevik

As a cis feminist, I know how to spot an MRA attack and how to confront misogyny. "Women can't be leaders because of their periods", etc, etc.

But this... is... territory that I'm not that aware of. This tweet helped me to see the battles and misconceptions and sexism that the trans community fight against each day. Boil the community down to it's basic tenants and it's not about changing your name or how you dress. A blue lightsaber isn't blue just because it was someone's favorite color....

I may need a few more reminders, a few more viewings as I learn to understand this community more and more. So thank you Marina for bringing this up and showing where cis women are missing their mark.

Brain on Fire: My Month of Madness

Okay everyone, I'm bringing this thread back! Ready for round 2019?

Below, please add your top three feminists or feminist moments from 2019 (The Cheers) and the people or moments that offended feminism or the work we try to accomplish (The Jeers).

Who made your list this year?

Astor: Yikes. That is pretty heinous.

Blind Veterans: a beauty tribute. Also I love the dry sense of humor from the one vet "as you can imagine, it ruined my Wednesday morning"

I think that goes to show WHY monuments tend to be about ideas or historical moments more than real people. Ideas can't let you down nor have hideous goals.

Keith wrote: "Lets take the premis of powerful women. One would have to assume they need to be the 'right kind of women?'

For example, I very much doubt there would be much cheering for a 'Sarah Palin Avenue' in feminist ranks, despite the fact it can't be denied she had power (and may still have) and that she will be remembered. Conservatives could beg to differ and therefore it comes down to who makes the decision."

Palin probably won't be given a statue or have a road named after her; maybe for her role as Governor of Alaska. But she failed in securing the VP position and then she left her post as Governor for a book deal. I think the public prefers nostalgia of old over something still fresh in our collective consciousness.

Nancy Astor, for example, she was the first at something and won, and recently honored. And I'm not sure if it was Astor's statue or a different one, but I thought I recall reading that there was a vote of who the town wished to memorialize. So it's up to the people somewhat.

I know here in my big city the council renames a few streets after local heroes. The metrics to be memorialized include:

Among the new requirements:

- Individuals must be deceased for at least two years or be retired at least 10 years from a distinguished career or have made an accomplishment or contribution to the city or region.
- Organizations should be in operation for at least 25 years and should be of major importance to the city.
- A street receiving an honorary designation must be in the sponsoring council member’s ward and the honorary street cannot exceed one block.
- The designation will expire in 10 years.
- Council members will be limited to two honorary street names during a four-year term.
- If the designation involves a residential street, the request must be accompanied by signatures from 70 percent of the property owners.
- Made significant contributions in arts, science, religion, entertainment philanthropic, or business.
- Generously volunteered time and effort for the betterment of the city, state or nation.
- Served with distinction in the United States armed forces or community safety forces.

We have a few Congresswomen named, a nun, and a banker. A start, bit still too few for parity

Yeah. I hear that. Solnit gets points for at least mentioning POC or some of the heinous crimes of yore unlike some of of our other white female feminist writers (Moran, Penny)

She does mention "who is meant by "we" is crucial to any place in the monument. Colonizers often begin by renaming the places they arrived in and decolonization always involves undoing this." At least here in the States, that's pretty helpful as we honor the native names of places or we remove the ones named after people considered bad news today like good old Chris Columbus.

I am eagerly looking forward to non westerns to jump in. I know Mulan has a statue in China. But I'm not familiar with street names or monuments for famous women elsewhere.

So what's out there OSS?

Thank you Keith. That's very helpful.

Here is hoping the liberals do learn. A couple of my friends are getting into a fight about (Biden v. Sanders / Warren) that they want both someone who can take down Trump AND someone who can change the world.

I think I'm a bit jaded. I don't know if one person can do both. Obama was beloved by the party. And he still was stymied for two years by a GOP leading Congress. He still used (and possibly abused) executive orders which has given Trump a lot of his fodder. I don't see any front runner being able to do both.

Keith wrote: "There was real concern raised when 18 female MP's stated they would be standing down at the election, citing abuse and intimidation, and this a would effect the number of female MP's elected."

Thats fascinating and unnerving. Glad to hear that there were more women who were willing to take a stand and who were voted in.

In the States, New York citizens elected the youngest congress woman ever, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) in hr 2018 general electric primaries.

She defeated Democratic Caucus Chair Joe Crowley, a 10-term incumbent, in what was widely seen as the biggest upset victory in the 2018 midterm election primaries. She defeated Republican opponent Anthony Pappas in the November 6, 2018, general election. (Wikipedia)

When haters started expressing their ire and questioning how she did it she tweeted back a picture of her sneakers that were well worn with holes. She knocked on doors, she talked to the people, she met the population who quite frankly wasn't the same that the 10 term incumbent probably thought was still there. She worked her butt off trying to meet with the people, stay in touch with the people, and get her name out there.

With all due respect to the UK and my limited knowledge of what this all means, but people aren't monoliths who stay the same. We're mutable. We change. AOC took her position because she connected with the people and listened to their needs. The Labour party doesn't seem like they have.

I think the problem in 2016 was that the Democratic party thought they had it in the bag too. They laughed and poo pooed at the GOP who vetted 10+ candidates because they didn't have a front runner. They thought it was a circus without remembering that the Caesers of old gained power and kept it by keeping the masses entertained.

They stopped talking to the public and then were blindsided when some of the public found a different mouthpiece. (Russian interference, popular vote, and horrible pr schemes not with standing).

And we're seeing that same thing again. Biden isn't really trying. Or of he is than this is really scary. But he has always had the name recognition as the former VP. Warren and Sanders are seen as far too left. So Biden, by default, is seen to be the better candidate for fence sitters or centrists.

So Democratic community. You have a few months to make Warren or Sanders your candidate. Otherwise you're stuck with Biden.

I enjoyed:

"Let this flooded women stories never cease" - there's a problem with the way feminism moves forward in reaction to breaking news stories. It brings focus to a single predator, a single incident, in the people who haven't faced the pervasiveness of misogyny can build stories around it as to why this is the exception, not the rule, or the act by a member of a subcategory we can dismiss or demonize.

"All the rage"- One of the pitfalls is trying to establish equality is to confuse gaining power with unleashing rage. For all of us this is the conundrum how, without idealizing and entrenching anger, can we grant non-white people and non male people and equal right to feeling and expressing it.

"A hero is Disaster" - Positive social change results mostly from connecting more deeply to the people around you then rising above them, from coordinated, rather than solo action. Among the virtues that matter are those traditionally considered feminine rather than masculine, more nerd than jock: listening, respect, patience, negotiation, strategic planning storytelling. But we like our lone and exceptional heroes, the drama of violence and virtue of muscle- or at least that's what we get over and over ,and from it we don't get much of a picture of how change actually happens and what are role in it might be or how ordinary people matter.

"Long Distance" - if history and intergenerational memory gives us a social and political baselines, amnesia renders us vulnerable to experiencing the present as inevitable unchangeable or just inexplicable. There is power and possibility in remembering that booms don't last, that campaigns can alter the fate of a people or even a nation, that the ways in which we think about race, gender, childhood, and age are mutable, that anyone who is alive for more than a few years has lived through violent transformations. ... I am old enough now to be repository of the way things were before.

Keith wrote: ""One says she would walk straight in a city, meaning she would feel included, while the other wonders if a man would sexually harass her in a street named after a woman."

I think this is a very small point. What Rebecca is asking is for her audience to extrapolate life for decades with the impression that women hold value; beyond unamed muses, nurturers, and caretakers.

It's not just a name of a street. It's the long-term eulogy and memorialization of someone's acts. With the idea being that if we were to see more women as historically important then it wouldn't be odd to see women as people today.

To break it down a little bit more, sexual harassment xcetera is not about sexual interest so much as it's about power. The idea that you can get away with this while the other person has to just deal with it.

Solnit proposes that if a couple generations grew up with the idea that women were important enough to be memorialized as street names or Parks or States then would we still have this imbalance? Where most sexual harassment abuse and rape is caused by a person in power over someone they deem powerless; where statistically speaking it's men harming women.

Would sexual harassment still be around if generations grew up thinking that women were powerful and worth remembering. Would would there still be a societally reinforced notion of weaker sexes?

I enjoyed looking at the maps in the book "Whose story is this" for that very purpose.

apparently he is going through back surgery, the poor little lamb. Also fun fact, he apparently violated his bail conditions "Manhattan Assistant District Attorney Joan Illuzzi told the court that Weinstein violated his bail conditions by mishandling his ankle monitoring system at times. She said there were 57 violations of Weinstein's ankle monitor in under two months."

That does a lot Sarah! Thank you.

I think it should be noted that because society is changing, our language is changing. To that extent, the fact that mansplaining is a word and is receiving greater and greater awareness, pushbck, etc, is because women are no longer abiding by it.

The item has been named and therefore it's being called out.

This word, these stories exist because our culture is changing.

Florian wrote: "Naive question: Is mansplaining extended to other genders as well?

I know it is mainly including (not sure whether "include" is the appropriate verb for what I am trying to mean) women but I'm jus..."

Not sure Florian. The definition I found on the web says it's typically to another woman. "the explanation of something by a man, typically to a woman, in a manner regarded as condescending or patronizing."

But I think it could also apply when someone feels so gosh darn right or they believe they should speak towards a subject they know nothing about that they tend to be condescending or patronizing to someone who they deem lesser who is actually in fact a subject matter expert on the topic.

Susan wrote: "I have a father who endlessly interrupts me to “explain it the right way” — even my nephew rolls his eyes. I often wonder out loud why he supported my education if he was always going to doubt ever..."

Not necessarily man-splaining but darn annoying along these lines. I was giving my dad a tour of where I work in a research lab. Every couple of minutes he would interrupt me to share a story (that I've heard before) or go on to explain what he knew of the subject matter. Fine. Dads are going to dad. We came into a robotics lab, which isn't my lab but I have given tours to guests plenty of times before so I know my way around the equipment. One of the robotics engineers was working late and was curious who I was with and came over to investigate. So I introduced him to my dad. And my dad asked him questions without interrupting; he was patient, listened intently, and thanked the guy profusely when finished. Night and day difference.

Part of me knows this is because he was being polite to the robotics lead while I assume he was attempting to bond with me during my portion of the tour or even a misguided attempt to stay relevant in my life. But it still felt like a slap to the gut. It felt like he was dismissive /decided I deserved less respect than a total stranger.

After Paul D opens up some to Seethe he tells her that the worst night of her life (when she was beaten and robbed of her motherhood and womanhood) that her husband saw the entire thing and went mad with the grief of it. (mad as in certifiable detached and unable to comprehend; crazy)

And Sethe, who had been holding out hope that her sweet husband would come home, is awash with emotion. Grief, shame, anger.

"He saw them boys do that to me and let them keep on breathing air? He saw? He saw? He saw?"

Paul D responds "Let me tell you something. A man ain’t a goddamn ax. Chopping, hacking, busting every goddamn minute of the day. Things get to him. Things he can’t chop down because they’re inside.”

This whole scene just breaks a person. Morrison doesn't go into much detail about what occurs, she spread out the confrontation across various flashbacks and rememories. But the emotional Crux comes from Sethe's breakdown. She had withstood that AND then escaped AND delivered her baby.

The whole scene sets up her next confrontation with Paul D when she comes clean with her own past and he just leaves.

Man is not an ax, but darn it did it feel like Morrison was saying that a woman is one. She she cannot stop busting every minute of the day because if she does she'll come apart.

What about your interpretation?