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

Pam’s comments from the Our Shared Shelf group.

Ross wrote: "for those on OSS who like there links and statistics this is your mo..."

Wanna start a topic thread Ross? :D

People are not going to change their opinions in 1 situation. They may listen to you, they may question what you say, but you will not change anyone's opinion in one go.

Most opinions are based on upbringing, reinforced by friends / family / work , and increased through big moments in their life, 1 conversation will not change anything.

If anything, the only person being changed by that one conversation will be you as you are reinforcing your own beliefs.

So instead of seeking to change their minds, try instead to understand where they are coming from. Seek understanding and shared ground.

A: I'm a dog person
B: I'm a cat person
A: Cool, well then have you checked out the local shelter?

A: I'm a republican
B: I'm a democrat
A: Cool, make sure to mark your calendar to vote on this date for the local / state election.
A: And maybe you can tell me what you love about....

This becomes a bit heavy with the classicism involved, but in general I am in favor of gender only groups for many the same reasons listed above by James and Georgios.

Boy Scots, Girl Scouts, Eastern Stars and Free Masons, Fraternities and Sororities, All girl school, all boy school, etc. I acknowledge that this is a part of the binary system we have in place regarding gender roles and was created as a way to help the specific gender have time alone.

Also, Keith asked about Free Masons I was apart of the International Order of the Rainbows for Girls, which was the female youth service group within the Free Masons. Adult version is called the Eastern Stars. We did charity work: helped organize donations for the local food pantry, helped knit scarves for the homeless, and even care packages for those serving over seas. The biggest difference between us and a church group or girl scouts was the packaging really. In Girls Scouts the uniform was the sash with badges on it, where as in Rainbows during meetings you had to wear solid color dresses to represent which station you were in. (And - my favorite part was that they had to be "respectable dresses", floor length, cleavage was a big no-no)

Love (red) In all its forms
Religion (orange) The Importance of religion in all its forms (based on love and forgiveness)
Nature (yellow) Its Importance in your daily life
Immortality (green) The understanding of death is a part of life
Fidelity (blue) Emphasis on being honest and reliable
Patriotism (indigo) Encouraging citizenship to your country
Service (violet) Service to others which bind all the colors together

Instead of badges you would get little color metal ribbons to indicate which category you filled - like Trivial Pursuit pie wedges. Either the female version is watered down or I was too young for the weird Free Mason mystical stuff, because there wasn't any. Nicest group of Bible Thumpers I have ever met even after I left. A little culty? Nah, when I back talked and questioned even they rolled their eyes and agreed at times. Our group was also on it's way out. Free Masons hay day was really in the 50's. I was the only recruit for years that was not affiliated to a Star or a Mason by birth.

And like most fraternities or groups, you make lasting friendships with order members because you have a reason to see them and work on bettering yourself and your community in a regular time together. Because there is nothing like walking in pantie hose and heels for the first time to help connect you to other sufferers. (And thankfully no boys witnessed the numerous trips and accidents until I finally mastered it!)

Great choice OSS! This has been on my "To-Read" List for a while!

Thank you for the opportunity to read it with such amazing and insightful people. Also - thanks to Keith, Gabby, and Erin for the heads up on the numbers of then vs now.

Keep her memory close, continue her legacy.

Karina wrote: "The book in question is a Young Adult High Fantasy "

I think you answered your question right there - it's YA. This book is written for tween eyes and older. Parents who want to keep their children as children for a few more years do not want them to learn about sex for as long as they can - and they will put up a big fight to keep it that way.

YAY! Thanks Jo!

Oh, so I wrote this somewhere else, but I don't think that was the place to put it. So, apologies, I will add it again.

I wanted to address this because it ---the ending tried to wrap up the story as if it was the past, but it used a clinical setting to do that--- really annoyed me as well. And that is what I imagine Atwood wanted. Even after her publisher raised a quizzical brow.

There are two things at play here that I felt pulled on the themes of the book
- Voice
- Acceptance

Voice: It was a MALE professor who gave the lecture, right?
- So you as a reader have to decide... did things actually get better? Are we in an equal society once again? OR Do men still have most of the positions of power?
- Atwood takes us out of the fantasy world of Gilead into a setting that is eerily familiar. So you begin to squint and question it, looking for traps. You just came from a dystopian-sick-to-your-stomach-no-hope-world... that you have to be a bit trigger shy and wonder what is the catch. What's wrong with this one? And because it was such a familiar setting, you hopefully begin to question where are all the female professors? Will you begin to wonder about hiring practices or demographics in your own actual job? Start to wonder where are all the female leaders: CEO's, presidents, Chief Scientists are in our world. etc.
- And because it was a male professor, we have to question: Did he do a good job at interpreting and honoring Offred's point of view - and/or - did he add some bias to it? He mentioned that the handmaid's tale was one of the only verified account. Either they were silenced or their tales did not survive; only cheap knock offs exist. "We were the people who were not in the papers. We lived in the blank white spaces at the edges of print. It gave us more freedom. We lived in the gaps between stories"

The whole book was trying to explain that those in power can take away your livelihood, your future, your body. But the one thing they couldn't stop were your own thoughts.

But by having a male professor be the one to uncover and interpret her thoughts, Atwood flips that premise and asks if that is actually true. Because once put down your own thoughts could be misinterpreted or discredited by those who read it.

So while you are squinting at this future world, are you also squinting/ questioning those who are giving you information, too?

The second point is acceptance.

I am glad that you did not like this ending. I am glad that you didn't even like the beginning because you couldn't and wouldn't accept it. NOR SHOULD YOU. Atwood is screaming in the pages about how awful it is to just accept. "Ordinary, said Aunt Lydia, is what you are used to. This may not seem ordinary to you now, but after a time it will. It will become ordinary or It has taken so little time to change our minds, about things like this..."

The sad thing is that Atwood reveals that is exactly what happened. The professor reports that the tale was part of the EARLY GILEAD PERIOD and then goes on to say that there was a middle ----and one could only assume a late period as well.

Gilead society, save for Mayday and a few other resistance leaders, was successful in eradicating all free thinkers. Those in power removed the wild women, those who looked different, those who prayed differently. And it did so in a way that allowed it's own people to become the jailers. Setting up petty issues and classes between the wives and the handmaids and the Marthas. The differences between Guardians, Commanders, and Angels.

There was so much infighting that society continued for at least three periods before it could come to the professor's talk.

So yeah, she didn't explain exactly what happened. She hinted at it. But I think she did so to make you question instead of blindly accepting

Any sort of relationship is going to be about how much both parties put into it. And most of it comes into shared moments.

This is easy when you have an outside force controlling it: work, school, etc. Both of you HAVE to be in the same place at the same time and do this repetitively.

This is a lot harder when you aren't because you do not have the constant reinforcement of time together or shared experiences. You then have to be the force that drives time together.

- You have to communicate with each other. Is it everyday? Once a week? Every quarter?
- You have to schedule times to meet up: Birthdays, holidays, once a quarter, for promotions?
- You have to be the one that tries to stay up to date in their life.

And you will find that this is incredibly hard once you no longer have an annoying coworker or homework assignments to commiserate over. Or when you no longer live down the street from each other.

Because more often then not, these feelings of settling - as you put them - are not new. They probably had these aspirations or desires to do something like this for a while. It's just that most of your conversations have been on that annoying coworker or that homework assignment or based on how close you lived. It might not have been as serious as their dreams of the future or their desires to be a mother.

So long story not, I agree with Ragini... have you talked to them about this? Have you called them up and asked them to hang out?

If distance is an issue, have you watched a netflix show together? Have you sent each other articles of interest, or inspiring messages - aka kept the conversation going?

Now, are all relationships worth saving? Not all of them. Some can be toxic as Meelie and Georgios pointed out. But you were friends with them for some reason. Was it because of THEM or because they were the only ones around?

Hi Hailey!

Wanted to circle back to see how your independent studies is going/ went.

Indigo, come back we miss you!

Very cool! My state did something similar. The house didn't appear to quiet know what to do with them.

Great topic Ashna,

On a personal note, I am in a serious relationship with my SO of years who does not agree with me on certain issues. BUT as echoed by Keith, Gerd, and Debster, these relationships exist based on trust, communication, and understanding. We live in a complex world in which our reactions to the same situation will undoubtedly vary. We laugh at different jokes, enjoy different hobbies, so of course we will also have nuances to our opinions.

Does this cause strife? Sometimes. But discussing and getting to know their differing opinions can lead to interesting insights into their character. AND into your own reasoning.

Would I be more active within my chosen issues if he was not in my life? Possibly.

But again, its all based on trust, communication, and a commitment to each other. For all those who are new to their relationships or are facing the - do they think like I think? / do they have the same convictions like I do debates ... you have to ask yourself where are your boundaries? What are your values? And know your worth. Know where you are ok with bending, learning, hearing people out, and where you are not. Is your SO aware of those areas, too?

I DO Not recommend being in a relationship with someone who degrades you or constantly puts down your interests. If they do, call them out on it! "Hey, you are criticizing this thing I love, why?" And then decide if the answer jives with you or sends up a red flag that tells you you need to begin reevaluating the relationship.

Harder still when this is with family members. But as you grow older and have more freedoms / autonomy, you will find it easier to navigate your opinions / personal choices.

Keith wrote: "Best example I know is Lisbeth Salander from the Millennium series. However, it has to be the Swedish version with Noomi Rapace taking the lead role."

Curious, what's the difference between Noomi's portrayl vs Rooney Mara's?

Meelie wrote: "Wonder Woman, women only viewings... for or against?"

Against. For many of the same reasons listed above. It's still sexual discrimination during an open public event. I.e.

And I understand what you're saying Meelie, Keith. But there are ways of enjoying this film as a safe space. A group can buy out a screening for a private audience or you can purchase tickets during off times towards the end of it's run in theatres when less people are around. Or you can wait when the film is out on DVD for purchasing or renting or loaning library. There are already current avenues in place for those who may want to see the film with a group they trust or alone.

From a different angle Wonder Woman is our FIRST super hero female lead. She is not a side kick or a team member or the villain. Finally! This is a sign that stories - no matter what gender's stories - can be enjoyed by all.

This is the same message as gender specific clothing or toys (pink/pastel for girls and red/bright colors for boys). We don't need a super hero for women and a super hero for men. We can have a super hero for all genders.

Hahaha. Goober. 😊

Georgios wrote: "Please tell me if I have made any false assumptions about feminist religious choices here Pam.."

Hehe. It's a joke Georgios. At least here in the States it's an essential part of being Catholic. Catholics confess all the time bc they are burdened with being human.

Georgios wrote: "She has pointed out very very wisely that the deeper she got into feminist ideas the more aggravated she became. You get that with inbred ideas. Αdd scepticism to the equation and inbred ideas get removed almost immediately.g"

Right. Add confirmation bias into the echo chamber and you have a stagnant, repeating mess.
There is a difference between a movement and faith. Movements need to evolve, need to wrestle with new cultural and social norms whereas faith works without knowing.

I think this video and the one you supplied James, also shows some of the dirty secrets found within movements. That they aren't all good!

To which I mean that they are made up of people who make mistakes, have bias and cognitive dissonance. Most people act and feel that they are in the right. But we have so many differences of opinions bc there are so many interpretations of what is right.

I find this fascinating. We have "art" being built upon "art." Its an evolving piece.

From link: Sculptor Alex Gardega told The New York Post that the proud, gangly young woman “is corporate nonsense. It has nothing to do with feminism,”

I kinda agree with him. I wasnt enthralled by this proud little girl being a homage to feminism. BUT im enthralled by the idea more and more as she continues to be harassed. Not bc of any perversion. Instead to me now her pose and little profile makes sense. Now she is doing something. She is enduring. She is triumphing against ridiculousness. And her visage will continue to be a spunky, resilient profile.

Georgios wrote: " Here is a very important quote from one of the greatest Greek Philosophers and Writers:
"Love responsibility. Say: It is my duty, and mine alone, to save the earth. If it is not saved, then I alone am to blame. " Nikos Kazantzakis - Askitiki (The Saviours of God) - 1923


Beautiful quote. I can feel my Catholic guilt afflicting me already.

In all seriousness, we all must be aware of the danger of being couch warriors. Not to say that spreading ideas and conversing online and reading books doesn't help the movement - for it does. Just that we cannot rely on these tactics alone.

Echo Chambers, while comforting and educational, don't hold the answer.