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

Pam’s comments from the Our Shared Shelf group.

Keith wrote: "Looks like I'm in a minority of one - I think it's a poor Idea. If you can't get a job on merit, you should not be in it"

I understand where you are coming from. Nepotism is a horrible item. The Peter Principal also states that "managers rise to the level of their incompetence". I..e. you're promoted until you fail. This happens across all lines and demographics of people. But if we turn back the clock a few years, the Peter Principal could only be used against white men as there were (and still are) a few things stopping women or poc from getting to these top positions in the first place.

1) Education and Experience. (States Centric, my apologies)
If schools didn't teach women or poc then they couldn't get the advanced degrees they needed to even be qualified. This is why the institutions like Smith /Wellesley College for Women or Howard/ Morehouse for African Americans was so necessary. They were the only game around that taught large numbers of these groups of people.

But even then, we still discriminated as to what kind of professions these people could do. Nursing vs being a Doctor. A Computer (computational assistant/ mathematician) vs an Engineer. A elementary school Teacher vs a Principal or College Professor.

Which brings me to the Second point.
2) It was felt that women couldn't take on the leadership positions because of frailty of body and fragility of mind. They wouldn't be able to make the tough calls or decide on something. That they would be swayed by emotions. (Sound familiar?)

Finally, once that was (and still is being) debunked, you have a work force that has the foundational education and the experience to take on management or higher roles and you run into the third problem.

3) You would think that if you have the skills you would be hired, but that's not always the case. We have studies showing that our biases favor men. https://www.theguardian.com/women-in-...

Take for example the article above, despite women having the education and mastery of an instrument; they still weren't getting hired by orchestras. Not because there was a lack of applicants or because they didn't have the skills. But because of our biases in still thinking that women are inferior to men.

As a way to work around this, orchestras set up blind interviews that would place a screen between the hiring committee and the player. With this in place, the technique and the music could be reviewed - not the person's gender. And viola! In a decade of using this technique orchestras hired an additional 15% in the work force; 3x the amount from the first decade.

This is seen in business as well. Personality traits that are seen as masculine tend to be commended: Decisive, Aggressive, or Warm are ridiculed in women as being: , Dictator, *itchy, or Motherly. Same traits, but the different packaging condemns it. Etc,

4) The other big excuse is the family situation. Women were not hired because if they become mothers than you're out of a worker. Would you want to spend time training this person only to have them leave for 6+ months with the off chance they wouldn't come back after? But even before that moment, historically speaking women have been pressured to have the family instead of the career. That their children would be damaged in some way without their mother's attention/ that child care from a nanny (if you can afford it) or day care was a stain on your credibility as a maternal force.

In my opinion, a quota helps remove these issues. You make sure that women are in a position to gain experience to help them grow and go up a career ladder. You remove the biases that people have as they work with more and more women. And you also begin changing the conversation about a women's place at home with the added bonus of creating more jobs for caregivers.

Are quotas perfect? Nah. As mentioned, I personally feel they need to by dynamic and have a stopping point once peak saturation occurs. And hopefully, as we become used to the "Other" be it gender or racial based, we do not need to have these in place. But for now, I think we still need them.

I'm old school myself modest myself. I am all for a dress code when it comes to business wear. Wear smart professional clothing that is not revealing for all genders. Pants not shorts. Tops that have sleeves. Midriff or backs need to be covered

This is of course easier for men as their bodies are not sexualized. But I don't want to see a guy in a strapless shirt anymore than the other ladies. No I don't want to see your leg or you calf. Keep that for the gym or the pool.

What I don't appreciate is the argument that dress code is enforced because a girl's body (again sexualized) is distracting to boys/men. That's ridiculous.

MeerderWörter wrote: "Speaking of it in a more general sense - how come women are allowed to wear trousers in the Western world but if men wear skirts and dresses, it is seen as odd?


To quote Iggy Pop:" I'm not ashamed to dress "like a woman" because I don't think it's shameful to be a woman"

Or the great Eddie Izzard "This isn't a woman's dress, it's my dress. I bought it, so it's a man's dress. You don't see a woman in trousers and ask if they're men's trousers now do you?"

Change takes time. So I tend to see quotas as the start of the change in a gender dominated profession. The goal of which is two fold - help the demographic achieve opportunities so it can advance into top spots AND help the company get used to seeing and getting used to diversity.

But it should be a dynamic quota. One that increases each year or makes sure that there is diversity at all levels or departments. And then at a certain point the quota needs to be removed. This way the positions are not coveted for power ( like the Aunt's in Handmaids take) and you are creating a company that will fosters it's own growth and isn't restricted by its own red tape and rules.

Ok. In Post Weinstein world we are seeing the backlash against figures like Louis C K and Kevin Spacey who are now being fired from shows. And previous projects are also decreasing their support for these men.

Popular figures like Finn Wolfhard and Terry Crews are also distancing themselves from agents who may be equally abusive.

Additionally the Reddit sub group: "incels,” or men who blame women for their involuntary celibacy, has been banned from the site. While this might not be the first group ever banned, it is a strong move to stop hate from spreading in public forums.

And at first after reading about Spacey and CK, my mind goes immediately to ah crap I like these artists. And by blocking the incel group we will also bring about a cry about free speech and all that.

But you have to break a few eggs to make an omelet. If we want the world to change than examples will be made of those who go against it.

Speaking of progress for Trans people...US elects our first Trans politician.

https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/lo...

Griselda wrote: "I personally like the idea of always knowing what the other side is thinking about....however...I wouldn't want the book of the months to be anti-feminist. I do feel we can have a thread about all ..."

It was a beautiful train. I'm glad you had such a positive reaction to the books and the group

Ah yah! A dystopian world that females create.

I look forward to reading this.

There is a lot of us vs them mentality on this site.
So much so that this stance also colors the way we react to each others comments which sometimes makes it difficult to voice a diverse or new thought. Reactions vary, but the more interesting ones are when people responses are denounced as a non believer (as shown above), reacted to as if you're a victim, or blamed.

I understand what many are saying here: that enough has been done against us and continue to go against us that we shouldn't show any support to anti-feminists or their thoughts. AND that we still have so much more ground to cover ( Indian pov, Asian pov, feminism in sci fi, the Bell Jar etc etc)

But I think it's safe to say we all joined this site to expand our knowledge and understand the "other" as a way of understanding ourselves. Reading from the reverse perspective is just another way to understand the complex multi faceted ideaology.

We as individuals can share books that explain the anti fem stance. Than as individuals we may or may not read them. Emma, in the end, decides what we as a group reads next anyway.

So far we have :
Strangers in Their Own Land by Arlie Russell Hochs

Any others?

Winston wrote: ".."I'm not like, saying you're advocating for public execution here, but in the context of this discussion thread and the greater prevalence of "calling out", I have to ask why James and I opinion of avoiding vilification is unacceptable to you. *

As a side note: Winston, your remark on "fighting words" is so true

I think agressive language is so prevelant in our culture that sometimes we don't even notice how often we use it. I.e. I used calling out above too. Thank you for pointing this out.

And now back to the conversation at hand.

I would love to see an intentional work done on literacy given that this is our bread and butter here at OSS.

This could take shape in an OSS approved
- book drive for local libraries
- tutoring hours for local schools
- or giving to specific charities like Dolly Parton's Imagination Library or the UN's Literacy Projects.

The EIG submitted their report on Distressed Communities Index which stated that people in distressed (extreme poverty) communities a fourth of the population are without high school diplomas. Even more drastic, in the States, it's estimated that while families with $50k or more annual income that the ratio of books to children is 13:1. While below $50k annual income it's 1:300!!!

Ross wrote: "words are important and feeling riding high. at least apathy is no longer an issue. people with public voices have a duty to choose there words with care and in these times of powerful men and the ..."

True, but we are also in position to learn from them too.

Mayim is learning about the other POVs in feminism as surely as we are by being part of OSS. The difference is of course that our gawfaws are smaller in impact.

My aplogies if my above comment came off too forceful.

With all that is going on these day it's easy to see a drop of rain and fear the storm. Seeing the work down on the Progress thread is helpful, but I find we also need to remind ourselves that nothing is ever final until after the dust settles and the history books are in the 5th edition.

I don't agree.

In the states we were in The Great Recession and we voted in the first black President. Who pushed forward with inclusive actions like community gardening, renewable energy for Native Americans, and countless urban housing and educational reforms to make it easier for people with socio economics disadvantages to succeed.

I can't speak for the UK, but here it's not a forgone conclusion that equality all goes away during economic down turns

So... I really like what is happening outside of these reviews of the state of womanhood. Specifically the following Twitter campaigns.

- Alyssa Milano's #MeToo
Which explores how prevelant and widespread is the issue
- Tamara Cofman Wittes, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, #IWill
A call to action on how we as individuals, and not just women, will make this issue a thing of the past..

It's very saddening to see the scores of people coming out with the first. Reminiscint of all of us who read Hunger and have come forth as it were. And very gladdening to see what power we have to call out these antics. The collective WE is a powerful force.

*fist pump! Fantastic!

Luna wrote: " just recently discovered that my unconscious choices dictated by my low self esteem were damaging me, and I was about to screw up my whole existence because of that.."

That's a great point Luna. I think many of us do things or believe in things that are contrary to some of our values. And we may not even know we're doing it until an external stimuli shows us otherwise.

Ashley wrote: "When reading through a lot of the self-esteem issues of this book regarding Roxane's size, I felt heartbroken, for many reasons.

Beautifully written. Thank you for sharing these details. Roxane, never being a mother or having a mother who struggles with weight, would have never known how weight isn't important to those who love you unconditionally.

Give your mom a big hug for me when you see her next!

Robert wrote: " It's about damn time!!"


Starting in 2018, the Boy Scouts will allow girls to join the 7- to 10-year-old Cub Scouts. Small, community-level “dens” will be single-gender. Larger “packs,” which are comprised of dens, will decide whether to include dens of each gender or not, the BSA said.

So best of both worlds. Single gender similar to Girl Scouts, but with more outdoorsy orientated activities. It'll be interesting to see how it pans out: retreats, long adventure journies, etc. Do those remain single gender or do those go co-ed too?

Also, as per my brother who is awake at this hour: "That’s a good move. But I think they will try to shift more towards just calling it scouting then Boy Scouts. I’m personally glad to see it. Even as a Cub Scout we always did more outdoors activities than girl scouting. And girls like to camp too."

Now question: does this perpetuate the idea of male saviors? In the short term, the men's organization comes in and kinda sorta denounces the women's run organization and it's attempts to make a scouting program.

That's right up there with complaints of why women don't just hold it and wait to go to the bathroom at breaks.

Sigh