Our Shared Shelf discussion

Okay, so if I'm being honest, I can't help but feel that this book is kind of cheesy at times. I have learned and I have been challenged, so I like that aspect. bell hooks has given me some new nuggets of information that I have enjoyed reflecting on.

Overall, I find the thinking idealistic in an impossible sense. And I recognize that I am one of those cynics who believes that societal poisons like racism and sexism will always be around.

"SPOILER"for book: Don't read this post unless you've read Chapter 7 (or don't care)

Has anyone gotten to the corporate greed part yet? Specifically when she "calls out" Monika Lewinsky? I mean, she doesn't mention her by name, So I suppose she could be referring to another woman who had sexual encounters with a president.... But it seems pretty clear that she is talking about Lewinsky.

What hooks writes about her seems really harsh. I'm having a hard time getting past it because it feels a lot like victim-blaming to me. Actually, it feels like bell hooks is discounting Lewinsky's own lived experience (and hell) and that doesn't sit right with me. I think she is simply trying to use this incident as an example of how greed produces lovelessness--but I have to admit I cannot be objective with this story. Lewinsky's life was ruined-and bell hooks makes her out to be some dramatic teenager who wants all the attention and just made up a story to be famous. Literally this line:

"With the boldness of any con artist working the capitalist addiction to fantasy, she attempts to rewrite the script of their consensual exchange of pleasure so that it can appear to be a love story."

I hate this line. It seems judgmental and very loveless. And the thing I hate most is that she is trying to claim Lewinsky's own lived experience is a lie--as if she knows better than Lewinsky herself?? And it feels a lot like shaming, which is distinctly un-feminist (in my mind).

Did anyone else feel this way? Am I alone here?

Yeah. I think it's extremely slut-shaming, not to mention wildly presumptuous to declare what is or isn't love when you're not involved in a situation.

All around uncool, really.

I don't remember exactly what bell hooks said, so go ahead and quote. What I do know is that Monica Lewinsky recently gave a TED talk about her public shaming: https://www.ted.com/talks/monica_lewi...

I think the only person to be shamed in that whole scenario was the so-called "friend" who couldn't shut her mouth. Lewinsky was young and possibly naive (based on my take on her TEDtalk which I've watched quite some time ago now admittedly), but she deserved absolutely none of the shame. Also, interestingly enough, she was deemed "dirtier" than Clinton, who wasn't single but in an actual relationship at the time. You can't break a marriage that is doing well and not even then does the other party have any responsibility in regards to the wife at home... *eyeroll*

Oh, but it did hurt him. He was impeached. He just wasn't convicted.

I've read that the affair may hurt Hillary, too. This was one point made in a "New York Magazine" article Emma cited in her interview with Gloria Steinem. The article is about single women voters, and one of the things it posits is that no woman has ever suffered so much as a wife as Hillary Clinton. Most women wouldn't stick with their husbands after infidelity, but for whatever reason, many political wives seem to look the other way. (Jackie Kennedy, Eleanor Roosevelt, Lady Bird)

Yeah, Monica Lewinsky probably shouldn't have slept with a married man, but how she is treated is inexcusable! Clinton was just as guilty, and he wasn't publicly shamed. She was also still very young and naive, and there are multiple reports of Clinton preying on women, and there is even a report of Clinton raping a woman while he was a politician in Arkansas. We definitely need to discuss these unequal standards. They're sick.

Kressel wrote: "I've read that the affair may hurt Hillary, too. This was one point made in a "New York Magazine" article Emma cited in her interview with Gloria Steinem. The article is about single women voters, and one of the things it posits is that no woman has ever suffered so much as a wife as Hillary Clinton. Most women wouldn't stick with their husbands after infidelity...."

I think that saying that no woman has ever suffered so much is a pretty serious over statement of the case. That said I do agree that Hillary is in a Catch-22. If she didn't support her husband she would have been judged for being an unsupportive wife and pretty harshly too. But now she's being judged for not being critical enough of him. It's a damned if you do and damned if you don't situation.

I've been very impressed lately with how Monica Lewinsky has been handling herself in the public sphere. It seems to me that she has been doing some really thoughtful analysis of what can be learned from her experience.

Bunny wrote: "If she didn't support her husband she would have been judged for being an unsupportive wife and pretty harshly too. But now she's being judged for not being critical enough of him. It's a damned if you do and damned if you don't situation."

Yes, and the worst is that she didn't do any of "it" in the first place.

Bunny wrote: "I think that saying that no woman has ever suffered so much is a pretty serious over statement of the case."

I found the original quote. It isn't quite as I stated it: "The apparent lack of trust in [Hillary] Clinton reflects that there is perhaps no politician who has suffered more for having been a wife.

Original article: http://nymag.com/thecut/2016/02/polit...

THANK YOU! "Slut-shaming" and "victim blaming" were the words I was thinking reading this part. This isn't to condone what Monica Lewinsky did, but she was a victim. To put so much thought into other parts of the book but to throw this out there just seemed uncharacteristic and un-feminist.

Bill did get impeached, yes. but he actually became more popular among male voters after the scandal. Monica was absolutely shamed for it and nobody was really on her side. Stephen Ducat talks about the aftermath of it all and how Bill and Hillary (i don't recall anything about Monica) were both treated by the public in his book called The Wimp Factor. The book isn't solely about the Clintons but since it was written in like 2004 (it's a bit dated) the whole thing was still pretty exciting to talk about, so if you'd like to read about Bill's popularity after it all I'd definitely recommend it :)

I felt the same way reading that part. I completely agree with you Jeenie.

I don't think Lewinsky is making herself a victim at all. Anyone who watched her TED talk can see that. This is such an important issue that needs to get more attention.

Lewinsky is also not only instance of slut shaming and victim blaming in the book. The Nicole Simpson passage really made me uncomfortable as well as how she describes addiction.

I read chapter 13. I was really touched by how she described shame. It really goes in line with what Lewinsky talked about in "The Price of Shame": Humiliation is one of the most intensely felt emotions.

On page 132 hooks wirtes: "As long as we feel shame, we can never believe ourselves worthy of love. (...) The belittling of anyone's attempt to name a context within which they were wounded, were made a victim, is a form of shaming. It is psychological terrorism. Shaming breaks our hearts." I find this qoute very truthful and powerful. And I think it goes exactly in line with Lewinskys message.

"All about love" was published in 2000 and Lewinsky gave her speech in 2015. So, maybe bell hooks changed her mind after hearing Lewinskys talk? Hopefully

The part that upset me the most about that page was (view spoiler)[ "Concurrently, the young woman involved manipulates facts and details, and ultimately prostitutes herself by selling her story for material gain because she is greedy for fame and money, and society condones this get-rich-quick scheme. " (hide spoiler)]

I grew up hearing adults saying that a lot of actresses who open up about being raped or abused by their directors or producers were just asking for attention. That they are adults and they knew what they were getting themselves into.

It sends a mixed message. How are we supposed to open up to love if we get shamed for opening up about being hurt?

And then the part where she states (view spoiler)["Her hope is that everyone will be seduced by the fantasy and will ignore the reality that deceit, betrayal, and a lack of care for the feelings of others can never be a place where love will flourish." (hide spoiler)] What if the only reason she retold the story is because she needed to believe that it was love? Hooks is immediately jumping to conclusions about ulterior motives but I feel like it's our instinctual to try to rationalize certain situations.

I would have preferred it if she addressed it as a confusing matter (like she did with abuse in Chapter One and Two) as opposed to just judge the two of them for their actions. Back in 2000 (when this book was copyrighted according to the copy I have), she had no way of really knowing what went on behind the scenes...and we cannot really trust the media to deliver the accurate information because unfortunately, all the media cares about is the scandal.

It just seems like a such a black and white perspective on Hooks part. Just because it might not have been "true love," it doesn't mean that it didn't start out with the intention of love.

I absolutely agree that it's wrong and unfair to make assumptions and pass judgement if you don't have the necessary information. If you haven't been present or been in the same situation or have a way of knowing what's going on in other people's minds you just don't know anything about it really.
I try not to assume things or form opinions without having the knowledge, but I think we often make assumptions or form opinions automatically or unconsciously and especially in cases of public persons we are heavily influenced and manipulated by the media. But then it's important to be aware that what you have is an assumption or a prejudice and not the truth and to remain open to new information and reconsideration.

While I agree that the slut shaming is awful and needs to stop, I agree that the double standard is crap, I can't get behind the "She was young and naive."

To me, making excuses for women like that is just doing more damage. It reeks of belittling women as if they can't know their own mind or that they need more 'experience' to be valuable or opinionated.

She made a mistake, yes. However, excusing her mistake by age and naivety is just as bad as excusing his mistakes with phrases like "Well a man has needs." or "Well if a girl throws herself at you!"

Keeping things balanced, they BOTH made mistakes, were BOTH adults, and made choices. Right or wrong, they are THEIR choices and both should be equally responsible for them.

Period.

I agree that the passage about Monica Lewinsky was overly critical. One aspect of the situation that I think needs to be mentioned is the imbalance of power. To say, as bell hooks did, that Bill and Monica were equally responsible is inaccurate, in my opinion, and ignores the hierarchical situation in which the "affair" occurred. I agree that dismissing Monica as "young and naive" is belittling, but isn't there an option between these two extremes, one where we don't belittle Monica, but still recognize the power imbalance of the situation in which she found herself?

Sara wrote: "Lewinsky is also not only instance of slut shaming and victim blaming in the book. The Nicole Simpson passage really made me uncomfortable as well as how she describes addiction."

Yeah, this part bothered me too. It seemed like blaming a person for their own murder.

Catrice wrote: "While I agree that the slut shaming is awful and needs to stop, I agree that the double standard is crap, I can't get behind the "She was young and naive."

To me, making excuses for women like tha..."

I actually think that the only mistake Monica Lewinsky did was to confide in someone, who didn't keep her mouth shut.

Good interview in The Guardian with Monica Lewinsky.

Lewinsky was once among the 20th century’s most humiliated people, ridiculed across the world. Now she’s a respected and perceptive anti-bullying advocate. She gives talks at Facebook, and at business conferences, on how to make the internet more compassionate. She helps out at anti-bullying organisations like Bystander Revolution, a site that offers video advice on what to do if you’re afraid to go to school, or if you’re a victim of cyberbullying.

A year ago she gave a TED talk about being the object of the first great internet shaming: “Overnight, I went from being a completely private figure to a publicly humiliated one worldwide. Granted, it was before social media, but people could still comment online, email stories, and, of course, email cruel jokes. I was branded as a tramp, tart, slut, whore, bimbo, and, of course, ‘that woman’. It was easy to forget that ‘that woman’ was dimensional, had a soul, and was once unbroken.” Lewinsky’s talk was dazzling and now gets taught in schools alongside Nathaniel Hawthorn’s The Scarlet Letter. I can think of nobody I’d rather talk to about the minutiae of online bullying – who does it and why, the turmoil it can spark, and how to make things better.

https://www.theguardian.com/technolog...

I'm so glad she has been given an opportunity to redeem herself. How callous of us women in America to shame her so excessively. It should have been a one week story and on with it. Look at the guys from New York who had these affairs while in public office that escape scrutiny and in fact have their own tv show. When will women be equal? This is a long time coming for her, and thankfully someone gave her an opportunity, though it was probably to boost ratings, sell copies, etc., but I am glad to see her have a life. I applaud her.

"We have to be careful. Everyone's fighting a battle we can't see."

It's the motto I live by(additionally to being a feminist, btw, I think it is very feministic)

Victim-shaming is one of the foulest things one can do. You will probably destroy the victim's world and make it even worse as it already is.



But this case also shows how patriarchic even Western societies are. For an affair it always needs two people, and to shame just one is just unfair. I also share your opinion, Catrice, that they BOTH made mistakes, were BOTH adults, and made choices. Right or wrong, they are THEIR choices and both should be equally responsible for them.

Could someone please tell me what Lewinsky did that was so horrible? She had sex, that is it.

The person she chose to have sex with was married. That was not her problem, but the guy's only. If he had problems in his marriage and decided to have sex with someone else, it was not her place to judge that decision. Or maybe he just wanted to have sex with her, even though his marriage was fine.

I do not see why it is necessary to blame a person outside of a relationship for anything that a 'taken' person decides to do. Whatever happens in the relationship afterwards is none of the 'outsider's' problem. If there is any blame to seek and find, it is in the cheater. Nobody else.

I hated that line. It upset me so much I thought for a moment I won't finish the book.

Emma wrote: "Aglaea wrote: "Could someone please tell me what Lewinsky did that was so horrible? She had sex, that is it. The person she chose to have sex with was married. That was not her problem, but the guy..."

I agree with both of you! It takes TWO to tangle, and they both tangled. Now, if she drugged him, then that would be a different story. Clearly, that is not the case, and he was not drugged, therefore he could not have been raped.

And yes, society does want to blame the unmarried person for ruining a marriage.

OTOH, I can't support either person (for office) because of what happened. However, not everyone knows someone is married no matter how public that person is. Thus, I prefer to say my peace and then move on. I'd never vote him back into office mind you, but I don't think that what either of them did warrants banning from society, banning from publishing, having lucrative jobs, and so forth. I would only be relunctant to vote for them and that is all. Why? International scandals do not do well with international politics is why. Just imagine if it would have been with the wife of a President, Prime Minister, King or high ranking dignitary who is well loved all over the world? Think about what happened to Prince Charles when he had an affair against Princess Diana? I'd rather avoid such things if possible for my government.

Does Lewinski owe his wife anything? No! He, OTOH, should be giving his wife (are they still married? I forget!) or ex-wife lots of money because of what he did to her. He disrespected her and their marriage. I still believe in the sanctity of marriage where two people came together with those rules set in place. This is not to say that if two people marry with the understanding that they would keep an open marriage where "players" are welcomed owe each other anything. I just believe that if you violate the rules that you have both agreed upon, then the violator of those rules should pay. And if the partner indicated before marriage, that they do not agree with such rules, then if it were me, I'd run and leave that person in the dust and never look back.

Yes they are still married. They have been married for 41 years and have a daughter who is currently expecting her second child. They have worked closely together in political and charitable pursuits for many years. Regardless of what anyone outside the marriage thinks, the two people in the marriage have apparently worked it out.

Hear hear Emma! I agree very strongly that it's not our place to judge other people's personal lives and personal decisions.