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

Pam’s comments from the Our Shared Shelf group.

The link for those who are curious.

http://www.nytimes.com/1993/02/28/wee...

Briana wrote: "As Emma says, feminism isn't a stick to beat other women with. Freedom of choice, right?! And that Estes interview made me sad that she seemed to slag off my 'wild woman' who wants to be a Ms hahaha."

Ah, I see. On that note, I ask that you look at the date of the article. 1993. To give you some context: Vagina Monologues was first preformed in 1996. Feminist / Ms in the early 90's left a bitter taste - more so I would argue, than in today's palate.

Perhaps this is something Emma could ask - would Dr. Estes consider herself a feminist now. And if not, why not?

So in a NY Times article dated 1993 Dr. Estes mentions:

"Women who have always been taught to be nice do not realize they have these options," she said. "When someone tells them to stay in their place, they sit and stay quiet. But when somebody is cornering you, then the only way out is to come out kicking, to beat the hell out of whatever is in the way."

In my opinion, her work on wild women is not necessarily a move towards intrinsic femininity, so much as the opposite.

I ask that we all keep in mind that Estes was 47 when the book was published in 1992.

This book was an culmination of more than 20 years of work as a trauma specialist for war veterans and war children. It is safe to assume most of her patients were victims and/or survivors.

Another thing to keep in mind was that she was working with patients that made up much of her work during the 70's or 80's. A time where a single, divorced woman with children was not considered a strong, independent person so much as someone who messed up. Her patients were probably shammed by society and given little reprieve as compared to single mothers today where they are a touch more supported. Again - not having a man in your life was still a big deal - see Murphy Brown and the 1992 Dan Quayle remarks!

How does this color her narrative of women?

She fought against the idea that the ideal woman, the epitome of feminine grace followed the old adage that a woman's place is in the kitchen. That women, like children, were better to be seen but not heard. Estes rallied against a notion that she, and others like her, as a single, divorcee with children, that she was not given the same respect as a man. That she had to be quite while the men were talking.

She worked hard to reclaim what feminine meant in the 1970's - 1999's. She reminded a generation of women - her patients / survivors as well as her readers - that feminine can mean beautiful but angry, decisive and curious, crafty and all sorts of things because women have always been made up of these traits.

Briana wrote: " but other parts in the interview I found even more problematic - like she cringes at the label 'feminism' apparently, and she disapproves of the label 'Ms': While she urges a liberation for women, Dr. Estes cringes at the label of feminist.

"No Latina woman would be called Ms. -- that's an invention of middle-class Anglo women," said Dr. Estes, who was born to Mexican parents and adopted by immigrants from Hungary in rural Indiana. "Latina women are proud to be called Mrs. That simply means that we have a family."

Which is fine if she doesn't like it, but I found it offensive , as I don't want my title defined by my marital status! ."
..."

Briana, you bring up a lot of interesting points, many of which we (OSS and Feminists) are constantly reviewing and revising. One point I did want to touch upon was your usage of "Problematic" and "Offensive" when describing a person's preferred title.

Dr. Estes very clearly states that her use of a title is based on her heritage as a Latina. She is not dismissing others choice in using MS vs MRS. Nor is she championing the world to keep MRS. She, as a Doctor, in fact, doesn't use either!

Hmm. We have two sorts of links here.

Those that deal with being a victim (sexual abuse, rape culture, domestic abuse, consent education)

as well as

Those that are working to move women into more leadership positions.

Domingo wrote: "Muchos hemos aprendido que el primer ser sobre la tierra fue el "Varón", pero yo no lo creo así, pues un varón no tiene vagina. Pienso y soy convencido que el primer ser sobre la Tierra fupe mujer, pues tiene vagina para procrear. Ya el machismo, la ambición y la política varió esta óptica para dominar al mundo.."

Historia fue escrito el vencedor. Ahora es el momento de compartir la pluma.

Gracias por sus ideas

To help with the Spanish to English Translation (through google translate) of Domingo's excellent post:

It is interesting how the mentality of the human being has varied its view of respect to the intimate parts of men and women. I know that in antiquity there were rituals of veneration as a symbol of reproduction. Currently everything is lost and diverted only to the sexual plane. For this reason the woman's vagina is no longer as respected as it was formerly seen with the value of life. Even economic autonomy gave more independence and personality to women by increasing their character in society, with much more human value, but forgetting and displacing extremely intimate customs. Today we can see on TV the public less and less scrupulous of the human body in general, what was not 50 years ago. All this influences seeing the vagina with more material optics. However, the censorship to pronounce certain words depends on the country where it is pronounced, in mine (Peru) to say: "Vagina", "Homosexual", "Divorced", and others, they have their shadow of complex among the people who are Scandalisa, prefer to replace it with others such as: "Vagina = Pulpita", "Homosexual = Gay", "Divorced = Single", are modern reactions, which satisfy them as new and fresh styles to pronounce.

Personally I think it is not stigma to feel that mysticism of respect to the vagina, since I see it as the good that brings us to life. And it has enough strength and energy to understand everything that is incomprehensible to the human being.

It is important to return to old concepts such as when respect for virginity in women was so deep and perfect to reach marriage. I do not consider it archaic, the consequences of the loss of this custom to originated that at the moment does not exist much confidence in the woman on the part of the men. Trust is rigged and lost to any error and all charm disappears.

However, a woman with her virgin vagina can never be distrustful since no previous act can be pointed out to her. It seems archaic to think like this, it is difficult to understand it in current times of so much freedom of customs. But let us see how the galloping society is degenerating today and we can see that something failed, and this may be one of the origins.

I wonder what would happen if you can not point out any guilt to the woman's vagina intact ?

I think then we would be before an immaculate being. I have researched for years, what has happened in society so that it is missing so much respect to the vagina these days.

I am not conservative, I have gone to the rhythm of life, with great school and respect. I try to be current and try to be old-fashioned, without losing validity.

Many of us have learned that the first being on earth was the "Man", but I do not think so, because a man does not have a vagina. I think and I am convinced that the first being on Earth was a woman, because she has a vagina to procreate. Already the machismo, the ambition and the policy varied this optic to dominate to the world.

So perhaps the human being needs to wipe his eyes, to see with more clarity and naturalness the most beautiful and perfect we have: The Vagina (the woman).

A big point in the article: Equally disturbing to Ms. Kristjansdottir was that women negotiated lower salaries than men. Generally, men are four times as likely to ask for a raise, and when women ask, they seek 30 percent less on average.

No amount of government push will help women feel worthy of an increase (in title or pay). Women still need to understand their worth, do their homework on what they could be paid, and go after it.

Women still need to strive for 1) raises and 2) management positions. We need to be more ambitious and driven if we are to shatter that glass ceiling once and for all.

MeerderWörter wrote: "It's so sad that most members have 0 comments."

Not everyone joins books clubs for the dialogue. As a former long time lurker, I was interested in the book recommendations but intimidated by the size of the community. Goodreads style of 1 long record as opposed to say Reddit's chains make it hard to have long lasting conversation and true dialogue before the conversation moves on to another point. You have to invest a lot of time to see things through.

Came here to recommend Sister Joan Chittister. Glad to see she was represented already.

"Being a Buddhist Nun" by Kim Gutschov to offer another perspective.

Thank you Deka for starting this thread! Now to add the books to my "To Read" pile.

Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie's "We Should All Be Feminists" is a quick read but more of an essay than a book. It's a great primer to "Half of a Yellow Sun" or "Purple Hibiscus". And Angie Thomas's "The Hate You Gave" is on Amazon's must read list for YA Fiction.

My contribution is "Under the Udala Trees" by Chinelo Okparanta.

You could have been standing naked and it still would not have been your fault. We have a social order that says you do not touch people until they give you permission. At no time were you giving him permission.

But I do recommend you become more comfortable saying "No" in a firm, controlled tone. Additionally, "Leave me alone or I will call the cops." And if you ever come into that situation again, start explaining very loudly what is happening "Touching me against my will is sexual abuse" "Get away from me" Etc.

Excellent list with great points. Thank you for putting this together so succinctly.

Bunny wrote: "I am also circumspect about who I trust to talk about feminism and who I do not trust. I wouldn't deny being a feminist and I don't make much of an effort to hide it, but I also don't bring it up o..."

I think this is great. As great as Gayle's point about wholly agreeing with it and turning the conversation back on the questioner "Aren't you?"

Because here is the thing - Questions can put people on the defensive. You feel like you are being interrogated or under judgement. But you can flip the conversation by returning the volley back on the questioner AND you can own it.

By owning it you are showing no regret or fear or any sign of weakness associated with the term. So if the person is coming at you with an attack you end up stealing their thunder. And if the person is coming at you in shock disbelief asking for clarity or reassurance or something, you are also helping them to explore it with you. We are never going to remove the negative connotation if we are nervous of using it.

That said to the later point of "feminists are annoying" the same could be said with vegans or sports fans or anyone who is passionate enough with a certain ideal that they use that ideal as an identification. It would be like I shaking your hand and introducing myself as Pam every.time.we.met.in.every.conversation. You don't need to say it over and over again. If you identify with the cause that strongly then you are living it. You don't need to announce it. Nor as Bunny mentions do you deny it. You are it. This is especially true if you live in a particular conservative or dangerous place. You do not need to shout this from the rooftops if you don't need to. Continue to live your life - acknowledging your power- without need to hide or shout who you are. You will be known through your actions.

Is SPEW the best analogy though?

SPEW was mocked by most of the student body, the elves lived in terror of her antics, and it was very misguided. Her heart was in the right place, but only two things good came out of it a) Dobby got an awesome wardrobe and b) Ron remembered the elves during the Battle for Hogwarts.

I think this campaign is trying for a larger success rate than 2 individuals.

Otherwise I second Je's comment not everything needs a reason.

Ross wrote: "Disney like all institutions are products of there times."

This- a thousand times this!

Look at the trend and see how feminism is affecting stories.

- 80's/90's Women being more than pretty pretty princesses: They Have Personality. (Ariel / Belle/ Jasmine)
- 90's /00's Women don't have to marry (Pocahontas /Mulan)
- 10's: Women don't need to have a romantic interest to be compelling (Brave / Moana / Frozen)

Each generation is going to unravel more of what it means to be a strong character.

But also note the male POV as well:
90's Aladdin / Quazi / Simba / Toy Story: Proving yourself
00's: Tarzan / Kuzo / Milo / Kenai: Getting comfortable with uncomfortable / unknown
10'S UP / Ralph / Cars: Your destiny is up to you

Are the female lead stories at the same areas men's? No. But we are seeing a change occur. Where you don't need to be manly (strong / brave etc) to move ahead. You can be the skinny nerd who is the hero or the arrogant prince who learns.

I have hope that our stories will continue to evolve.

Great topic Die A.

What need to keep the pressure up individually as well as with our favorite communities
- Contact local officials
- Support women owned businesses
- Continue to better yourself and your economic/professional capability
- Network


What other ways can we think of to continue to push the feminist agenda? Eve Ensler did it with a play. Emma did it with a book club.

Thanks for the link Brooke.

I'm a Yank, but I am interested in expanding my southern writers repertoire. Can anyone suggest another female southern writer beyond the great Flannery O'Connor?

Emma wrote: "Does it have to be measurably effective? Hiding books is a low-risk endeavor."

Low-Risk is not the problem. It's the cost that I believe Adam is getting at. You can spend the same amount of money on purchasing the books as hosting a forum, promoting the book/ author on a local tour, creating an OSS scholarship, purchasing these books for local libraries, sending them overseas to our soliders, etc, etc.

Adam wrote: "But is it anywhere near measurably effective?

That's a good question. Return on Investment (ROI) measures are always pretty interesting. Amazon records may show an uptick, but we would have to keep in mind the influence of Our Shared Shelf readers on it first. Then the campaign second.

Far more difficult to track discussions / ideology changes unless included in the books was a) an invitation to join OSS b) a survey on the reader's experience or c) a tracker on the book - similar to those plastered on billfolds ala "Where has George been" campaigns.

Does the mods or anyone else have a system of tracking how / why people joined Our Shared Shelf? I would love to see a) a timeline of joining (Was there a tipping point and did it correlate with any PR items such as EW's Vanity Affair article?) and then b) the number of countries reached. Oh... and also a measure of "most likely to recommend" too.

Additionally, would we then want to target certain places? Urban or Rural? Third World or First world with later campaigns?