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

Pam’s comments from the Our Shared Shelf group.

I applaud you Ross on beginning the conversation.

Laci is back. Or at least has made a couple new videos regarding working with the anti-feminists.

Video part 1:
https://youtu.be/nQ1ga8yuM50

Video part 2:
https://youtu.be/AZGVlb9cwYg

Thoughts?

Keith wrote: The idea of digitizing books goes back to the 1940's, with some being produced in the sixties and seventies. CD's first came to the mass market in 1984, but where first produced in the sixties." "

Wow. Today I learned (TIL) moment. Thanks for sharing that Keith. I was not aware

Seems as long as the divisions serve a purposes to allow people to access the movement and contribute that is more important than the minutiae. Does however raise the matter of clearly identifying the fourth wave. This is where a champion or face is used. . ."

Thank you David, Agnes, and Sascha for the Q&A on the history of the waves.

Hmm... I guess I am in the camp that rejects the 4th wave. Because, in my opinion, the ideology has not changed between the before referenced 3rd and 4th wave. A tool has been introduced, a new platform. But not a new mission. If anything the tool has made it easier to participate in the 3rd wave. But it has yet to make it nonessential. I do not think we are done hearing from others.

You make some excellent points Winston. Playing devil's advocate:
- "Moira says that Lyrdia liked it." Is Moria the most reliable of characters? She abandoned Offred and then even in her "free life" in the Brothel didn't seem to be quite the revolutionary leader as Offred made her out to seem. Was she as daring as Offred thought her to be or was just just a rebel without a cause?
- "leaning forward in their chairs" "gazing down with interest" etc. Offred herself also is swept up into a blood-lust herself during the salvaging. It sickens her, but she still is swept away. Even mentioning after how hungry she is. One could also point to Offred having such a strong desire to be held and to be with Nick as a slight on her commitment to Luke.

I personally think Atwood did a fantastic job of giving us these conflicting emotions and actions that disagreed with opinions in all her characters. All of them were complex and not just mustachioed villains tying people to railroad tracks.

It reminds me of the picture of Hitler with the little girl my link text

How could someone so vile... behave and be seen as a normal human? The power of this photo and of Atwood's tale is that all of us have within us the ability to be taken up with blood-lust. To begin to see one group being better than others. We ourselves could cast the first stones.

The resiliency of the Manchester community brings tears to my eyes.

Thank you for creating this thread Keith and for allowing the global community to join the UK in expressing our sympathy and sharing our strength.

But the ideas that are behind a political movement can be discussed easily. Ideas do not physically exist as you know. However they have a corporeal form that we all have access to and it affects the way we interpret reality

I like that. I liken Groups as amoebas. In three dimensions there are arms (sects or subgroups) branching out, subgroups folding in on itself, subgroups that are working in unison with others, gobbling up areas, or scooting out of the way all depending on actions and popularity. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7pR7T...

And with that lovely image, I wish you all a good evening.

I really like talking with you and we're getting into it items that are hard to read with all the back and forth. So I want to propose the following key.

Key:
Georgios text :
Pam

"Who denounced what? I did not see a feminist movement trying or even attempting to denounce the extremists.
Ok. We could be better. Could you give me examples and where and how we could start? We could start a thread for OSS to identify extremist groups and also identify groups who are denouncing them as well. What else would work?

'Cause I agree, as I stated above, extremists are not kosher.

Also you do not have to police anyone. However you gonna have to be part of an inner feminist dialogue that manages these exremists. And you will have to make sure that others know about your opinion about them so they will not confuse you with them.
:) I think we are creating that dialogue right now.

And if I may also offer some feedback. Phrases like "you will" or "you have to" aren't very friendly dialogue terms. They sound more like demands.

Now about me leaving. I am still here am I not? Only I prefer to call myself humanist rather than feminist. It has a much broader scope and it does deal directly with what we have come to call "the human condition", and not with the limited scope of feminism. And no its not intersectionalal feminism when feminism absorbs other human righst movements. As I said I feel that intersectionality drowned other human rights movements.

Very true. I can only speak for myself, but I'm glad you are here to speak about this. To help bounce ideas in and around this particular echo chamber. I do caution you though, that to me, sometimes you can come off as a bit angry and demanding of feminists. As if, as a humanist you are working hard to fix that darn extreme group feminists who only care about one gender. Work with us as you mention in your next comment. Many of us do not hate men.

Society gets lasting benefits from social evolution, not social revolutions. Revolutions usually implode. Why evolution? Because the world changes when you show them there is a better way, a way that can be more beneficial for everybody. When you change it with screams and shouts and force, societies will return back to their previous state the first chance they get. So the only way for social progress and evolution is to create a vision for everyone. Not spit in their eye.


Also: keep in mind that as you said feminists do not give equal status to men. They wil call them "allies of feminism" or whatever else but they will not give equal status to men.
Be careful, not all feminists think that way. Are there some that do? Sure, but your falling into that trap that dissolves evolution and dialogue. I for one have stated many times here and elsewhere that things like gender bias for parental rights is wrong. That just because someone is a woman does not mean she is the person who should keep the kids. Etc.

But seriously do you want me to join or stay in a group that has members that say that any sexual intercourse between men and women, even consending one, is rape? Members that would call me a rapist for no other reason than enjoying sex?
Yes. Very much so. Because as you mentioned, we need to be the ones who correct the dialogue and return it to promoting equality. Not enemies. Not a superior and an inferior. We and others like us should be able to denounce those who twist consensual sex and overuse the idea of rape. Let's work on ending rape culture that exploits victims and protects rapists be they man or woman / gay or straight. Let us also make sure that while we are doing so we also look into this over generalization that then goes about calling anything rape.

Are you kidding me? What about the totalitarin leanings in Feminism, the fabricated language and the inbred ideology? You want people to join you while you have these? How would they join? Why would they join? With these kinds of stuff you get men like (i dont want to point any fingers so I am ommiting the name) not freethinkers.
I mean, I understand if that is how you feel.

But there are inherent difficulties with trying to change a group as an outsider. From the inside, you help change the internal dialogue.

As I said. Egalitarian Humanist. It sounds really good to me
Ok. Thank you for adding to our discussion otherwise.

Scott wrote: "The reader's guide at the end of the edition I have has a note from the author that everything portrayed in the book has been done by various cultures throughout history, it was just a matter of assembling them together. That makes the book even scarier"

One of the members has also put together a lovely review of the historical issues here if you would like to read more;
https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

Toria wrote: "I am an avid reader, I love books and I love reading all different kinds of books so it's not that I am unfamiliar with varying types of story telling but the way Margaret Atwood wrote the Handmaid..."

Hi Toria! I'm glad you have taken time to read the book and to post this question - it sounds like your time is vary precious.

Yes, I agree. The book almost has three intertwining times in it and Attwood never clearly defines all three.
1) Present Day in the Republic of Gilead.
2) Flashbacks or memories from the past or before Gilead forms
3) Future or post Gilead.

I personally think Attwood leaves things open ended to allow the readers to interpret things as we want. Instead, I feel that Attwood acts like a painter, right, where she paints us a picture that it meant to evoke a certain feeling. She doesn't tell you what feeling, but instead allows you to interpret it and sit with it.

Ok. So if I follow you...

Because I am not constantly policing sub groups within my own group I am allowing sub groups - of various extremes- to exist.

And that I cannot work with any individual outside of the large group - outsiders- because they have already came in contact with a tainted or bastardization of the Group's message because of these extreme groups.

So, if I follow, your argument is that the main group cannot grow or make lasting change while these extreme groups prevail?

Is that correct?

If so, I understand.

What I do not understand, is why you left feminism. If the group cannot make lasting change without denouncing these militant lesbians pushing a anti-male / vegetarian agenda or femmen or other radicals and essentially kicking them out of the group, then why did you leave? It seems like you would be passionate about trying to refocus and purifying the group from within.

Georgios wrote: "Pam wrote: "So don't think feminism is alone in having extremists. We do shush the extreme voices and other times we keep silent as the push, scream and bulldoze through areas that the other side of the group is afraid to go."

Sorry Pam I dont think I heard that correcly. What was it that you said? Can you repeat it? I think i heard "The end justifies the means."

Once again, do you think my denouncement of a group is going to have any affect on that group at large? Let me be clear, I do not like extremists. But I also am not going to spend all of my waking time to police them. Just as I am not going to spend all of my waking time trying to convince outsiders to become feminists.

Georgios wrote: Do know that KKK is not considered to be a Christian group and it has been excommunicated. Also keep in mind that many of the groups that you mentioned are not in Communion with the Roman Catholic or the Orthodox Catholic (as is the proper name) Church."

And that is exactly my point Georgios. KKK may have been excommunicated by a Christian Leader, but the KKK still see themselves and label themselves as Christian.

We can excommunicate and distance ourselves as much as our Muslim brothers and sisters are doing from ISIS or Boko Haram, but that does not mean that ISIS will turn around, agree that they aren't Muslim and apologize for slandering the Muslim brand. We can denounce extremists until we are blue in the face but it does not matter because the sub-group will not stop labeling themselves. And outsiders will not stop associating them with the main group.

How is that for the Praeto Rule? Where the KKK, ISIS, and all other extremists make up a small percentage of a group population and yet they still manager to cause most of the problems / issues / and controversies.

And don't expect 1 leader to make a difference, again, look to the Pope as in the Western Schism in the 14th century. Look to the President of the US - anyone had his share of dissenters who disagreed with their leadership.

Extremism will always happen when you have a population larger than 1. You will always have people clamoring that we are not going far enough, fast enough, etc, And you will always have opinions saying we are going too fast, too far.

Georgios wrote " Why does not feminism clear the record and does not condemn extremists? Why feminism does not create a streamlined ideological structure defining exactly what it is and what it is not? Are they afraid that they will loose their social pressure strength? ."

It is not fear. It just happens when you have a general idea. Different sects appear. Its strategy as much as problem.

Christianity : multiple sects - Catholic, Anglican, Lutheran, etc. For priests, monks, nuns of Benedictine, Jesuit or Frannscican orders. All are Christians but see the world differently than those who swear to the KKK

Animal lovers: conservationist, vegans, veterinarians and rescue operations. All love animals but may not go as far as PETA.

So dont think feminism is alone in having extremists. We do shush the extream voices and other times we keep sklent as the push, scream and bulldoze through areas that the other side of the group is afraid to go.

Like all other large groups united under a simple message

Georgios wrote: " why feminism and not humanism"

Why black lives and not all lives?
Why endangerd species and not all species?

Bc while there are issues affecting the whole, I'm concentrating on this fraction - working to fix the wrongs at this level that allows for other's to fix problems at other fractions that will simultaneously fix the whole.

Emma, with the fame she has received and earned, has done a good job of moving her spotlight to include crucial issues close to her heart.

She has become a or even the new face of the feminist movement. What I find interesting is that her way of handling the title expands upon the earlier movements desire to continue the conversation. Aka, where Dorothy Pitman Hughes and Gloria Stenium created Ms Magazine, Emma has Our Shared Shelf. Where we had rallies and protests, we have viral campaigns and UN appointments today. A sign of the movement's legitimacy and escalating need.

Many of your questions regarding her Vanity Fair picture or Beauty and the Beast or even the MTV movie award has been answered elsewhere.

Controversy will always be apart of who she is. As a public figure, as a political figure, every moment of her life will be scrutinized and reviewed on forums like these and many other platforms. Even more so with the internet. And despite a first hand knowledge of the perils of her celebrity, she still continues to offer an eloquent and resolute push for feminism.

I welcome her as a main representative and have faith in her abilities to continue to be a strong example to believe in.

Great topic Meelie! Thank you for initiating it.

Meelie wrote: "But, this fourth wave came along with the rise of the Digital Age/Social Media, giving everyone who is anyone a platform."

But not everyone has access to social media / the Digital Age. Do the waves only pertain to 1st world countries?

Yes, but the issue was never going to change overnight either.

The State's Civil rights movement, for example was officially about two decades long. They had shining wins million man March, I have a dream speech, etc. But you could argue that we're not done yet.

Same with this push. We want more voice in the government. We want freedom to decide what happens in our own bodies, we want equal pay. Etc. We are going to have to wait at least an election cycle to see a lasting impact.

Keep calling elected leaders
Keep attending public government mtgs
Push yourself to become managers or project leaders
Etc

Keith wrote: "Men, of course, were expected to ‘do their duty"

Further reinforcing the male ability to leave a marriage if their wife couldn't produce a child or specifically a male child. Looking at you Henry!

Right now I'm reading a book on ancient Rome. Here, the children in a divorce would stay with the father. Similar to Gilead, regardless of the birth mother. Times have changed, sure, but not for the better (imho).

Ross wrote: "If you are a certain type of male it is a paradise."

But is it? The Commander, one of the creator's of this world tells Offred that there is no more fun anymore.

Sorry, don't have the book with me right now, but he was explaining this to her during their hotel stay towards the end of the novel. He is only getting his kicks by subverting the system he established. To me it looks like;

Guardians: aka cannon fodder who don't get anything. Extremely repressed and constantly on edge killing machines
Angels: allowed to marry / get a handmaid. Probably the best place to be
Commanders: At the top of the world and hating every minute of it. Living our their fantasies with a cold, puritanical sigh.