Our Shared Shelf discussion

Hi!

I'm finally reading a book in this book club (I've been too busy to read the others)! I've started How to Be a Woman, and I'm finding it to be witty and clever and empowering. I'm really loving how comfortable she is with her sexuality.

There's one thing that's been bugging me, though. I posted a picture of the book on snapchat, and a couple people responded to me saying this book is a very White perspective, and doesn't include trans women that much?

What do you guys think?
(Also sorry if this goes against rules posting this? I don't think it does but I'm new to the book club? ;n; )

No, not against the rules at all! We 're here to discuss the good and the bad!

I'm about halfway through so far, and I definitely see where those criticisms come from.

But my questions about the criticisms are mostly with regard to what people are expecting to get out of this book. Each chapter begins with a recounting of personal experiences, and from there she riffs on the theme. So while even in a book about someone's personal experience, there are ways of being terribly exclusive, it also doesn't mean that it's problematic necessarily.

Again, I'm only halfway through, and there are parts that I've been a bit put off by, but hasn't made me write it off entirely (yet)... I'm trying to be critical as I read. But I am also reading this book knowing that it is based on the life experiences of a white, cisgender, heterosexual English woman.

Perhaps it's the title that causes problems here. But who knows if she even chose it. Regardless, the whole thing reads like a love letter to her younger self, like advice she wishes she could've sent back into the past... Like she's teaching herself how to be a woman.

I wonder if there are particular passages that have upset people that have caused such harsh criticism? I've balked at some of her word usage (retarded, for one).

It doesn't only exclude trans women, it actually uses the word "tranny" at some point :/

I think that the problem arises when people expect it to be a 'feminisn manifesto'. I read it as an autobiography with feminist commentary, which changed my expectations quite a bit. With that in mind, I'd say that, yes, the perspective is white because Moran is white. It would be hard for her to write an autobiography with any other perspective than her own.

As for transgender people, it seems like she doesn't know any, so it wouldn't be natural to include them any more that what she does.
If I was to write an autobiography about my feminism, I wouldn't really include transgender people either. I don't know any and I don't know enough about their struggles to comment on them, so I'd rather just not include it.

As for Greer, Moran does mention her, but she also criticizes her transphobia on at least two occasions.

"Germaine Greer, my heroine, is crackers on the subject of transgender issues!" (p. 13)

"In later years, of course, I would grow Greer-ish enough to disagree with Greer on things that she said: she went off sex in the eighties, opposed the election of a transsexual lecturer at
Newnham Ladies College, got a bee in her bonnet about
transgender males-to-females..." (p. 53)

So accusing her of being transphobic because she mentions Greer a lot seems a little farfetched.

I'm only ~40% in and so far it seems like she doesn't even try to include trans women.

One line that really put me off was "a. Do you have a vagina? and b. Do you want to be in charge of it? If you said 'yes' to both, then congratulations! You're a feminist."

I think that the use of the word tranny (or any other word) is a matter of... I almost want to say taste.

Personally, I don't give a fuck what words people use as long as I can tell from the context that's it's meant to be positive. Moran says about burlesque that it "anchors its heart in freaky, late-night, libertine self-expression: it has a campy, tranny, fetish element to it."
From the context, it's clear that it's supposed to be taken as a good thing.

Would I use the word if I wrote a book? No, I probably wouldn't, and it's true that Moran doesn't always show the best judgement about what jokes will still work when they're on the page.
But I think people should be judged on the content of what they say; not necessarily the specific words they use.

Trans artist Justin Bond said "What [critics of the word] fail to recognize is that by banishing the use of the word TRANNY they will not be getting rid of the transphobia of those who use it in a negative way. "
Bond is of course talking about the community itself and its allies using the word, but I think it works as a general rule too. We can fight to remove a 'bad word', but if we succeed, we won't have removed the hate that made the word seem bad. We've just removed the most visible symptom of that hate.

(It sort of reminds me of when Benedict Cumberbatch criticized the British movie industry's lack of diversity, using the term 'coloured actors'. Instead of sparking a debate about the lack of representation in British movies, it sparked a debate about the word coloured. When it died down, everyone knew that using the word coloured could get you in trouble - but the movies were as undiverse as ever. The symptom had been treated, but the illness thrived.)

Clare wrote: "I'm only ~40% in and so far it seems like she doesn't even try to include trans women.

One line that really put me off was "a. Do you have a vagina? and b. Do you want to be in charge of it? If y..."


I think this definition is also what puts some people of femenism, that the only people that can be considered feminists are people with a vagina, and not other people.

Well, I haven't read enough yet to be able to comment as much as Astrid has done, but generally speaking, considering public shaming and the teeny tiny spark that can trigger an very ugly shaming campaign, which ends up literally destroying a person's life permanently (and I wonder with what integrity that was done then, because I see absolutely no kindness in those attacking a single individual), people are extremely trigger happy.

They jump at the smallest chance to lash out and sink to incredibly low levels as far as behaviour goes, and the same is what Astrid touches on, the fact that people extremely eagerly take stuff out of context and/or choose to focus on one word such as in the Cumberbatch example. I can't seem to be able to work up such a heated response, when it's crystal clear that the intention in for instance his case was specific.

Not everyone is navigating specific vocabulary as smoothly as people, who have taken interest in feminist and intersectional topics for years already, but the effort made to improve a situation should be acknowledged, and someone could have told him in private that the word itself might not be a great one to use in the future. But again, obviously people have to be shamed in public, because it's entertainment. Go blood, go axes and spears, go Colosseum... We're as primitive as back then, absolutely nothing has changed, but there's always that one after which the horde follows like a bunch of mindless sheep without any reasoning or integrity. Did you see the photo of the man, who refused to Heil Hitler? He was hunted down and punished.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that not every time is there cause to start yelling, but when a thing was possible to interpret in several ways, the intention was benign. Other times it was malign, but if there's a chance for benign, I'm trying to be idealistic enough to at least consider the option that it exists.

Just look at mod Katelyn's commentary on bell hooks' words, she has read it rather differently than many, and when considering her thoughtful posts, even when not having read the text myself, I think I might interpret it like she has done. It just amazes me how quickly many dismiss things in life in general, and how closed they are to viewing something from more than one angle.

First off, I just edited my post from earlier. I wrote it while drinking my morning coffee so it was riddled with typos. Oops!

Just to clarify my earlier post, I was responding to the book on its own, not really knowing much about her larger public presence. I guess I'm not totally into the idea of criticizing a book for things that are said by the person outside of those pages. But obviously people aware of someone's general public presence first would justifiably choose not to read that person's work.

Re: trans issues. Yeah, the "do you have a vagina" thing is not inclusive. But prior to that she also refers to "male feminists," so it seemed clear to me that she was not meaning for that moment to be "All feminists have vaginas!" but specifically referring to young girls who aren't sure if they're feminists, in which case, this short checklist would be a quick and efficient way to answer that for themselves. I just read it as addressing a particular subset of people. So yeah, exclusive, but moreso in that that's who she was addressing in that moment. She tends to address that subset throughout, specifically young girls, because that is who she is referencing with her recollections of her own childhood (at least, as far as I am into the book so far). So in context, I don't find it to be too much of a problem for my own reading of the book as a whole. At the same time, I totally understand why it would be offensive to others.

Her use of the word tranny is complicated. Coming at it from a music scholarship perspective, the way it is used here, in alignment with the "power balance [resting] with the person taking her clothes off," as well as "camp," the word in context fits in with a legacy of performance reaching back to the mid- to late-19th century, with a close relationship with drag and performance art. Caitlin Moran, with some amount of background writing about music and performance, is likely familiar with this context. Whether or not that is the case, most people would be unfamiliar with this context, so perhaps it would have been wise to avoid the word for its other offensive uses.

Hope I don't come across as working too hard to defend her. I'm not really that invested, but I think the discussion of intersectionality is an interesting one when it comes to books like these, where the purpose is nebulous and it's not really clear what we should expect. I'm surprised that it was marketed somehow as a "feminist manifesto," because it doesn't read that way at all. It reads like many other celebrity/comedian "popular" feminist books that are mostly autobiographical with some advice based on personal experience.

I wonder if the marketing was on the publisher, though. Once a book leaves the author for good, from what I understand there isn't much to do anymore, even when it seems contrary to prior perceived agreement.

Katelyn, no, I don't read your comment 12 as defending here. It's just about pondering different perspectives, which when reading reviews on various books on GR is rather absent in many cases.

Aglaea wrote: "It's just about pondering different perspectives, which when reading reviews on various books on GR is rather absent in many cases."

Agreed! And, side note, there are plans for the coming books to cover more ground with different perspectives as OSS continues on :)

Feminism can be seen from so many different perspectives, and I think it is one of the main goals of OSS. To be quite honest, I'm only halfway through How to Be a Woman and, as much as some bits have made me laugh and think, this book cannot - and should not - be taken as a feminist manifesto for everybody, but as one way to look at feminism. If it is valid or not, it is up to each one of us to decide that. Moran's use of language can be off-putting and the lack of awareness to intersectionality throughout the book is quite appalling. Then again, her book is based on her personal experiences, and it does take a great conscious effort to take other women's experiences into account when you are focused on telling - and selling - yours.

I was expecting something more intersectional the first time I read it and for that I blame the marketing (in spanish is promoted like THE feminis manifesto) and my own expectations.

I understand the book has so white perspective... well, not white. Just Moran's perspective (as white middle-class first-world woman). I'd wish the book was a little more intersectional, but I also appreciate many of Moran's opinions (not everyone, though) and the way she put them all together in the book. Also, I appreciate the success it had, because it's one of the only modern feminist non-fiction text not-written-in-spanish that has been translated.

As for the use of 'tranny': didn't like it, but it the end is only a word. A very unfortunate one, yes, but I think there are things more problematic with the book; for example, the "do you have a vagina" test, for example, mentioned by Katelyn above. I always interpreted it as if she was trying to speak to women who don't identify themselves as feminists because the bad connotations of the word, but even then, it's very non-inclusive.

I made a review two or three months ago puntualizing that the book's advices were, in most cases, for women like Moran and that it wasn't a feminist manifesto.

So, let's open the can of worms. As a white woman, if I'm writing my own memoirs about my own life, how I've walked through life, and whom I've met, it should be altered to specifically include people I never interacted with? If we look past the manifesto and how-to, and reflect only on what is inside the covers, we still have concluded it isn't intersectional enough. But what if I never met all the people representing various groups? What if I grew up in a country where there's only one kind of race, religion, culture? Should I still write about intersectionality, even when it is my memoir?

We criticise Amy Pohler, Lena Dunham and others for not being intersectional enough. I'm reading Roxane Gay's Bad Feminist currently, and would find it incredibly weird to read about her comments about white women - because she's black. She hardly could convey properly the challenges I as a white woman am facing. I wouldn't expect her to write a personal memoir whilst in every other sentence discussing intersectional matters either, because it's a memoir - unless she has interacted with various groups without mentioning them at all.

Why are we holding Moran to that kind of standard? She isn't a person of colour, so it's impossible for her to write well about such issues. Based on this thread alone, I'd say it's better to shut up entirely, than write something only to find that it went horribly wrong. Why did Cumberbatch bother, because he was doomed to fail? All these expectations are impossible to meet in a way that satisfies exactly every minority or group that isn't being very heard yet, and who experiences oppression. So if he didn't say anything, we'd criticise him for not saying anything. But when he as a white male from upper layers of society breaks the silence, he obviously does it the wrong way. Man, couldn't he even get that one right? Bascially, his effort is nothing because he chose the wrong word. Never mind his intention.

Does a POC see how the shaming-type of reaction can alienate not only Cumberbatch from making efforts in the future, but others of his race, too? The heavy critique means a person needs to be really secure in themselves to risk being shamed for using wrong words, when trying to muster courage to voice dissatisfaction with issues of inequality. Stepping up to voice an opinion amidst a sea of people disagreeing with you can be scary in itself, but when you know you risk using wrong words on top of that and receiving horrible feedback as a result (from the very people you were hoping to become an ally with), perhaps it's easier for timid souls not to say anything? My guess is there's a huge bunch in this very group, who read along without daring to say anything, because they aren't used to being so public about their opinions. The fact that they are here, though, should count for something. Personally, I felt not heard at all, my aim was completely misunderstood in the White Feminism thread, and so I chose not to continue that discussion anymore. I don't have white frailty by the way, but I search my soul constantly and try to do better, and I'm fully aware of what my skin colour brings with it. With that said, I think I'm about to wrap this track for good in this thread, too, because I just can't deal with the word twisting and belittling of intention. Maybe in the future, but not today.

I almost get the feeling that people are combing through anything and everything that white people say and do, and if there isn't a constant disclaimer to include exactly everyone at all times, shaming can begin. I've already said in a few different threads here that I write with an all-inclusive disclaimer added below nearly all posts here, but perhaps I should copy-paste it? I actually mean this, in a very calm and neutral way, serious. Because in the What is Feminism thread, it's still being discussed how white-coloured feminists in particular aren't intersectional enough, so should we add the disclaimer if it is applicable? I include everyone when discussing equality, anything less is subpar, but to this date I've felt it too cumbersome to add. I'm prepared to change, though.

Aglaea wrote: "So, let's open the can of worms. As a white woman, if I'm writing my own memoirs about my own life, how I've walked through life, and whom I've met, it should be altered to specifically include people I never interacted with?
[...]
Why are we holding Moran to that kind of standard? She isn't a person of colour, so it's impossible for her to write well about such issues."

For me, it's not about her having to write about other examples and issues. It's about feeling yet again that I have no place in her feminism because she only encounters gender discrimination. It's written in a way that I feel is supposed to encourage people to see feminism as fun and cool, but I don't find it funny nor cool. I don't think that jokes about Ausschwitz or sleeping with Nazis are amusing, nor do I find comparing how underwear is to the partition between India and Pakistan hilarious. I find her book hypocritical as she mentions being politically correct and that one shouldn't make sexist jokes, but she makes other politically incorrect jokes.

I thought some more about my previous comment and the point I'm trying to make.

1. When men say they don't rape, not all men rape, some women choose to throw a hashtag smack in the middle of their faces. This is hurtful and arrogant, because what it essentially means is that men become robbed of their chance to ventilate frustrations. Not all men rape, and some male individuals can be deeply troubled by the fact that others of their kind commit such atrocious acts. Just think of how sexual offenders are treated in prisons. So to insult the decent men with a hashtag as well as refusing them the chance to discuss a very important topic only creates a Grand Canyon, it doesn't help us in any way to work to solve the problem.
Why do I say this? Because I got hashtagged "notallwhitepeople" and felt deeply insulted in quite a similar way.

2. Today's Germans aren't all Nazis, and the mother of the Columbine shooter isn't her mentally imbalanced son. These example voices deserve to be heard, too. Or at least I want to hear them, within the context that is theirs. Maybe you don't. Not all Muslims go blowing up Westerners either, and it is insulting to claim all Muslims are at fault for various terror attacks.
Why do I say this? Some white people are deeply bothered by colonialism, white privilege etc. and may want to discuss the situation in their own thread. Since I had no idea of the meaning of white feminism, I thought it was a thread for white people to discuss feminism out of our perspective. And I thought someone might actually want to hear my kind of person's agony over how POC are treated still, as well as hear that I'm all in for doing my share. I'm a problem/solution oriented person, and merely complaining about white supremacy isn't doing it for me. We can do better.

3. Racism manifests in various ways, and in countries where immigration has been non-existent up until recent decades, today we/they are at times facing entirely different problems than in places where there has been a multitude for hunderds of years and where for instance slavery has shaped the development of society in significant ways.
Why do I say this? When growing up, there were about a handful or fewer of people of colour in my schools, all adopted. My country looks differently than yours, most likely, so please don't shut me up when I bring this fact to your attention. It doesn't mean that I claim racism doesn't exist (I seriously am not that dense), but it manifests differently.


So, Caitlin Moran. What is her responsibility as a memoir writer amidst all this? Does someone have an exhaustive list of all the different groups of people to include in the disclaimer mentioned earlier, because I think I don't even know everyone, who feels oppressed and slighted, overlooked and excluded yet?

In the Prologue she writes "Germaine Greer, my heroine, is crackers on the transgender issues!" What does crackers mean? I assume it is British slang.

I just want to add, it's not that I disagree with some of her points. It's just that I find the comparisons she makes too much and it leads to me not enjoying the book. This is the most exhausting book for me to read, it's not 'light' for me at all.

Aglaea wrote: "So, Caitlin Moran. What is her responsibility as a memoir writer amidst all this? Does someone have an exhaustive list of all the different groups of people to include in the disclaimer mentioned earlier, because I think I don't even know everyone, who feels oppressed and slighted, overlooked and excluded yet?"

It's not about having a disclaimer list - at least that's not my problem. It's about the politically incorrect jokes she makes at other peoples' expense and which is supposed to make feminism funny. This is what I don't enjoy.

Anglea - I hear you! I have had simmilar thoughts. When I read Roxanne Gay I was happy to be educated, but I had so many "oh, that's a different world than mine"-experiences. I don't, and wouldn't dream of, deny racism - it is powerfull in Denmark as well - but the problems are different. We have an entirely different historical background.

And I often choose not to join discussions that are in any way related to racial problems, simply because I have had to many #notallwhitepeople-experiences. It makes it hard to learn, if you can't ask questions. I might come off as naïve on racial questions, but that might be because I am - in the same way that kids are often naïve. I don't want to hurt anyone, I want to learn, but I need to be able to ask completely stupid questions in order to do so.

And - I'm sorry I keep misspelling your username!

Edit: I've only just read the White feminism-thread. I'm a bit scared I've opened a can of worms. I'm sorry if I offend anyone - I really do feel like a weird toddler trying to figure things out.

Aglaea wrote: " the Prologue she writes "Germaine Greer, my heroine, is crackers on the transgender issues!" What does crackers mean? I assume it is British slang. ..."

Crackers means crazy.

On the other issue, you and I have already disagreed before and I expect we will continue to disagree and talk past each other in future. Hopefully with time it will get a little better. The problem as I see it is that when you say things like you just said about the notallmen hashtag it seems to me, what Henriette said, naive. Plus honestly just factually incorrect. It seems to me you are misunderstanding what's happening. But when I try to tell you that you are mistaken, you get angry and tell me I'm being unfair. So I don't know how to communicate that I think you've got hold of bad information, because it feels like you've already decided not to listen.

So, you know, fair enough, we move on. But it does create a gulf. I do think Henriette makes a good point, that there has to be a way ask stupid questions because otherwise how do you get answers? But I don't know exactly how we do that, except maybe go slow and build up some trust first, and then keep trying?

Anja wrote: "Aglaea wrote: "So, Caitlin Moran. What is her responsibility as a memoir writer amidst all this? Does someone have an exhaustive list of all the different groups of people to include in the disclai..."

I actually thought there were some good points made in the What is Feminism thread. It could be enlightening to have a separate thread entirely for people's personal disclaimers, because from what I read, many of us include everyone even when we might at times say only "women".

Yeah and that would be another example of a misunderstanding. Because it seems to me that what you hear when someone says she is excluding me is that she isn't specifically mentioning me. But sometimes that's not what it means. Sometimes what it means is she's organizing things in a way that doesn't just not mention me but in a way that makes it very difficult for me to participate.

So to take a very simple example. If you were to organize a feminist meeting on the second floor of a building with no wheelchair ramps or elevators. And then disabled people were to say hey you're excluding us and you were to respond no we put on the poster that everyone was welcome to come we just didn't specifically mention disabled people but we included you. Well yes but you're on the second floor of a building with no wheelchair ramps or elevators so no you didn't.

Henriette wrote: "Anglea - I hear you! I have had simmilar thoughts. When I read Roxanne Gay I was happy to be educated, but I had so many "oh, that's a different world than mine"-experiences. I don't, and wouldn't ..."

I don't think questions are stupid. It is proof that you care and are interested in expanding your mind. Personally, I also don't read Roxane Gay to be 'educated' but to get a glimpse into another person's mind. I'm not interested in POC 'schooling' me any more than I'm interested in religious people schooling me on their faith. Information and gaining knowledge interests me, but I'm not big on being talked down to.

When my question is labelled stupid, it shows how small the recipient thinks. The world is big and there are as many life experiences as there are people, and what we should be doing here is find a way in which to communicate such that everyone is satisfied at least reasonably. Calling me stupid or naive isn't helping, because I have rational explanations for everything I write, and sometimes I think in ways that the other person clearly isn't grasping. Which is when I withdraw.

Basically what we're dealing with is a problem of mutual distrust.

A teacher I had in middle school used to say that there are no stupid (or naïve) questions, just people who don't ask. So, when people ask me something abour my perspective, my culture, etcétera, even in a naïve way, I answer. Yes, sometimes is exhausting, there are language barriers, but I answer because they ask and by asking they show interest instead of making assumptions.

I don't feel obligued to educate anyone (or with the responsibility or capacity to do so), but I feel that every questions deserves an answer, doesn't matter how naïve it is, because it help us grow and avoid any misconceptions.

Back to Moran and her perspective... I said I was expecting something a little more intersectional because of the marketing, but I don't consider the lack of intersectionality in the book Moran's fault. After reading the book, I ended up prefering that she didn't say anything instead of messing up more because many of her jokes make me uncomfortable, really uncomfortable.

Also, I could understand Moran point of view and sometimes I agreed, sometimes not, but I couldn't relate to anything (and, because of the fail marketing, I was expecting something different). I appreciate her opinions and the book, but it simply didn't rock my world.

Also, I read Roxane Gay two months ago because I wanted to read a different perspective and learn something along the way. Making a comparisson―although I don't like comparing different types of feminism―I felt that I learn more new things with Roxane Gay than with How to be a woman, but I appreciate Moran and Gay perspective the same.

Aglaea, I've been struggling with these concepts too. On what other people say, I think yes, it is naive, but that's the whole point. It's the status quo at the moment, so yes, a whole lot of people are going to be naive about these issues and there has to be room for that to be okay and not immediately incite anger. Or maybe everyone has to just realize it's going to incite anger in both directions because it's frustrating for both parties to understand, and that's okay. Even in this thread, I feel like people are angry that you're struggling with it.

I've had conversations with my husband in which he used some "not all men" type arguments, and honestly, I think they were helpful for me to hear. It's important for me as a female feminist to realize the subtlety that we can't generalize the privileged anymore than we can generalize the one's discriminated by it. Because yeah, men are also trying to be good people too. Different men do different actions, and we're mad at the action, not the gender of the person doing it. As women, we don't necessarily understand the intricacies of what it's like being raised as a man that lead men to think certain actions are okay. Focusing on specific actions would be more useful for everyone to get behind in their own way, and would avoid people having to approach the issue from the position of “enemy”.

Applying this to the race dynamic I feel like is what white feminists are struggling with. I feel caught between wanting to make things better and be involved in the solution, but also being a naïve white person who only has intimate knowledge of white feminist issues.

One example of this I've seen is some woc were mad that Emma Watson was designated the UN Ambassador, because she's white and they wanted a woman of color. To woc, I imagine it's disheartening to see one more white person in a position of leadership instead of a woc. The critiques though were disheartening to me as a white woman because it felt like here is someone who is honestly trying to do things right, and she's being told no, you shouldn't.

So, where does that leave the white female perspective? In all sincerity, should white feminist issues take a back seat to help promote woc feminist issues? Honestly, maybe? I don't know.

Kristina wrote: "Aglaea, I've been struggling with these concepts too. On what other people say, I think yes, it is naive, but that's the whole point. It's the status quo at the moment, so yes, a whole lot of peopl..."

With all due respect, I feel so misunderstood on this particular topic. #notallmen and #notallwhitepeople bores me to tears. Why? Because focus is still on defining the problem only, on a systemic level. Systems are made of people, and it's people we need to ignite changes in. I want to find ways to ignite change in other white people in my immediate and not so immediate surroundings. My country is facing huge changes, there are racist powers working already, and I will work to my last breath to help negate that. I can't stand generalisations, and racism is one of them. I just don't know the whole range of a disgustingly creative, racist mind yet, but I'd like to know (everyday examples) so I can do my very best to be part of not making those things find footing where I am in the world.

I grasped these concepts (exactly everything they consist of) the first time I read about them:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NotAllMen
http://time.com/2809276/notallmen-don...
http://everydayfeminism.com/2016/01/w...

and it isn't interesting to me to keep defining over and over what the problem is. My thinking is divergent rather than convergent, like the majority of the population's, (apologies but it's necessary at this point) my IQ is in the very far right of the bell curve, and when I discuss on my personal deepest level possible, I'm usually met with blank stares and coughs. It kills me, I feel horribly lonely.

I don't have problems with accepting that due to some fluke, I was born with white skin, and that this colour happens to open many doors that are so horribly unfairly and disgustingly closed in some respect still to POC, but I don't struggle with accepting this at all. It's over and done with. I want to move on and find solutions. But people keep insisting that my mind isn't grasping the very basics of these feminist concepts. That too kills me. I seriously can't deal with it, it's like slamming my head into the wall over and over, and it never gets any better. And when I give examples, they are dismissed, or worse, eventually I find that the person (not in this thread) arguing against me didn't even bother reading what exactly it was that I said.

So in the interest of not derailing this thread further, I can remove myself if it would be better. I'm not interested in starting inflamed discussions, but it'd be nice if I felt like people would actually grasp what I mean. Maybe I'm just not good enough at expressing my thoughts, apologies if that is the case.

Aglaea - It is a bit frustrating to me, that I don't get you (you are not frustrating me, just to make it clear - I just really want to get it right!). I keep reading your posts and I can't figure out where I misunderstand you, but I clearly do. Maybe it is a language barrier?

For instance I didn't read Gay to be educated. I read her because I found her interesting. But I did learn. A lot. So I was educated (in the sense if having completely new issues and topics presented and unfolded - from a specific pov, clearly, but I'm in arts and humanities - in my field everything is just one of many options).

I have a feeling that this conversation would be much smoother for my part, if it was in danish :)
I don't think you should leave it, I want to get it, but I don't want to pester you either.

My apologies, my intent was not to explain basic concepts to you, but to expand on what these basic concepts might mean in practice, and to share a bit of my own questions on the topic. If you prefer to think you're the only one capable of solution-based thinking though, I am perfectly fine joining in the rest of the conversation.

I also preferred Roxane Gay to Caitlin Moran. Caitlin Moran so far hasn't told me anything I didn't already know. Roxane Gay has been better written, more entertaining format, and has experiences I didn't.

For me I think the problem is that you say that you get it, and then you say things that sound like you don't get it. So I'm confused. If you get it why would you say this other thing?. It's like a guy saying to me I'm a feminist but I don't believe in closing the gender pay gap because its not real. And I'm left thinking well those two statements don't match so now I'm confused.

Which clearly means that there is a misunderstanding somewhere. Likely more than one misunderstanding. I don't know exactly where. But it will probably take some work to figure it out. At some point it will get to know each other well enough to start doing the work and coming to a better understanding, or we won't. But part of the work is also coming to trust each other enough to try and that also takes time. Because there are some dishonest people in the world and we don't know each other when we start out.

Henriette wrote: "I have a feeling that this conversation would be much smoother for my part, if it was in danish :)"

I am so impressed at all of the people here having these conversations from all over the world in English! There are very few conversations I could have in any language other than English (working on it though!).

Kristina wrote: "Henriette wrote: "I have a feeling that this conversation would be much smoother for my part, if it was in danish :)"

I am so impressed at all of the people here having these conversations from al..."

I agree very much with this. I only speak three languages a little bit and English is the only one I speak well. So I figure at least with that one language I should try to speak it as well as I can. I am really impressed with people who can have complicated conversations in more than one language.

Agree. I often have problems to express complicated things in English and I've learned and practised it all my life; but I feel way more comfortable with the Spanish and, while it's one of the languages more largely speak in the world, often I need to use English, as it is a "universal" language :)

I've taken up language learning (Spanish and French) partly as a response to feminist studies. So many opinions are lost or siloed due to language barriers.

"I also preferred Roxane Gay to Caitlin Moran. Caitlin Moran so far hasn't told me anything I didn't already know. Roxane Gay has been better written, more entertaining format, and has experiences I didn't."

Wanted to expand on this, and get back to the topic a bit: While I personally got more out of Roxane Gay, I dont discount the expression of Caitlin Moran or the experience of those who found her writings insightful.

Feminism (from the white perspective), for me, was the gateway to start questioning our internal bias in other areas as well. So while it's not the complete picture, and she messes up a bit, and a lot of people cant relate to her, I think it is still helpful as a part of the bigger picture. Reading something you can personally relate to every now and then is helpful to keep yourself interested in the overall fight against internal bias. If Caitlin Moran fills that role for one part of the population, then I am still glad she's choosing to jump in the conversation.

I think the problem comes when these are the only views we hear, or these views are given more prominence than others. I can understand people having issue with the marketing of the book and what they read. It does sound like she can afford to take it a step further.

In the prologue on page 11 she mentions (view spoiler)[ But feminism, as it stands, in the U.K. at last, well...stands. It has ground to a halt. Again and again over the last few years, I turned to modern feminism to answer questions that I had but found that what had once been the one most exciting, incendiary, and effective evolution of all time had somehow shrink down into a couple of increasingly small arguments, carried out among a couple of dozen feminist academics, in books that only feminist academics would read (hide spoiler)]

The reason I bring this up is because we're not all thought the same things. Although feminism is a growing movement, different cultures are getting different messages about it. This is why there's still people who are not okay with calling themselves feminist.

I feel like a lot of people are too busy attacking others for not knowing better, as opposed to informing them in a loving way. And all anyone would remember is the backlash as opposed to the message.

Moran probably uses slang and politically incorrect terms because she's trying to be authentic. We aren't born knowing the rules, we sort of have to pick them up along the way.

I'm about 20% in, so I can't really say much about the rest of the book...but all I know is if you're focusing on what's not mentioned, or what's wrong about it....you might be missing the bigger picture.
Then again, back to the whole "what are you expecting from it" conversation....I expected comedy. From what I learned in my many years of watching sitcoms is that, it will get uncomfortable. If done properly, it will make you think. But that's the beauty of it, we need to learn to laugh about it before accepting it into our culture.

My bad, I meant to write 12% in (in the last comment)

Also, I don't know why they removed the section I was quoting. I read in last month's thread to include < spoilers > spoilers> so people had the option to read or not. Should I just type it without them?

They didn't remove the section you were quoting, it's still there, but you have to click or tap on the word spoiler to see it. That's how a spoiler tag works. If someone doesn't want to see the spoiler they don't click or tap on the word spoiler, and the text stays hidden, if they do want to see it then they click and the text becomes visible. Try it and see.

Griselda wrote: "My bad, I meant to write 12% in (in the last comment)

Also, I don't know why they removed the section I was quoting. I read in last month's thread to include spoilers> so people had the option t..."

Bunny's got it! Also, if you're using the App, it is my understanding that the app does not have the capability of opening spoilers, so it'll appear as if it's just been removed. But I'm not 100% on that.

No idea because I don't like the app so I don't use it. Too many functions I use every day disabled in the app.

ah ok, I'm using the app and it's not showing.

That's the problem then. Unfortunate that it doesn't work in the app. I don't think the quote you shared is a big spoiler so if they aren't visible in the app maybe don't bother with the spoiler tags?

Well, the blurb of my edition says it's "part memoir. part rant"... So yes she isn't what you could call an "intersectional feminist" but this isn't an essay or anything, it's purely her views/opinions about subjects that are important to her. I don't find it particularly important to find a name for my vagina, but she does so she writes about it... in a very straightforward manner, which is funny and witty. I liked the book and don't understand why she's been attacked so much. I think the energy put in telling her to stop using the word "retard" could be used much more efficiently by writing an essay about gendered marketing. I agree 100% with what Griselda said, and I really don't think Moran knowingly used the words "retard" or "tranny" in a bad way.

I think its interesting that people keep using the word attack, when I'm not seeing any attacks, just criticism. Are criticism and attack the same? If they are different how are they different?

Mmh. I have always wondered. How can you criticize dismiss someone's experience? I mean this is what it is; her own personal experience. She is white. So what. She is also British. And born in the 70s. So, maybe her experience is too 70ish and too British. And too hetero. And too brunette. I have no clue.

Memoirs are typically the following:
You are interested in a person and love to read about someone's perspective.
You are not interested in a person and are required to read the book for school or someone else.
You learn something from one person's perspective that is positive.
You learn something from one person's perspective that is negative.
You like the writing style.
You do not like the writing style.

I love reading memoirs, because you can learn so much from a person's perspective. I did not grow up in England and I am not a writer. So I like playing the "what if" game with myself. What would I have done in her shoes? How much different would my life be if I had grown up in the UK? Would I have lived in London, too?

If we all just read books we 100% agreed with and that were just a pure mirror of our own experience, wouldn't it be boring to read to begin with?

I learn from the books I read. In particular from those that challenge my viewpoints. I find the comments on "too white" a little useless and to put it blunt "stupid". The real question is: Would a person of color have the same worries? Would a transgendered woman have gone through the same growing pains? And is this different today; 30 years later. Did we make progress? Again... these are "and" questions or "what if" questions, but these do not justify to dismiss someone's experience that happened 20 to 30 years ago when the state of the world was simply different. Transgenderism was a lot less in everyone's focus or if so then handled with a lot more horrible ignorance, often violence and conversations were simply not made public or talked about even with friends.

Ines wrote: "Mmh. I have always wondered. How can you criticize dismiss someone's experience? I mean this is what it is; her own personal experience. She is white. So what. She is also British. And born in the ..."

Well said. I like the questions at the end, too.

I don't know what made me think of it, but Brokeback Mountain the movie. It wasn't too long ago, but many men were so awkward about going to watch it. Gasp, some love between two humans. Gross. Eww. They should be beaten up real good. Ugh. Rude awakening, men have feelings and desires. Sometimes the recipient is another man.

as for #notallmen, i thought it was actually men who started the hashtag. the response was #yesallwomen, which isn't quite accurate http://www.theestablishment.co/2016/0... but very close to the truth. the main point was that men who say they aren't "like that" often don't call out other men on sexism. if they don't do that, they're part of the problem. also, if they feel the need to point out that they are good men, they're part of the problem too.

see this http://blog.shrub.com/check-my-what/ idk as a white person* i've accepted that when people of colour rant about white people, this doesn't concern me (if i don't do the things they are describing).

*slavic people have also been treated as "less than", note the name. i wish xenophobia was taking as seriously as racism.

I guess part of the issue, for me at least, is that the person in the position of privilege doesn't always realize, or doesn't always remember, how much say they have compared to the person in the position of less-privileged.

The privileged person generally is met with agreement and understanding by those around them, while the non-privileged in that dynamic has to fight extra hard for their position to be heard and validated (and why often time they simply choose not to fight that fight, I've done it). So, while the person in the position of privilege may think, don't we all have a say here? Aren't we speaking on equal terms? It's not actually true in effect.

I think it's really easy for a privileged person to forget this, especially in a scenario like white feminism where as a white female, you're playing the role of both privileged and non-privileged.

Something I liked from the Check-My-What article, under the “Trust Needs to be Earned” title:

“The problem is that we, as privileged groups, tend to get the benefit of the doubt on many issues (ex. the practically obligatory “notall men/whites/heterosexuals/etc. are like this!” type arguments that preface so many posts on issues that affect non-privileged people) without extending that same benefit to non-privileged groups who are speaking out against oppression. The facts are, there is a long history of bad behaviour of privileged groups towards non-privileged groups and because of that, we need to realize that the onus is on us to prove ourselves as allies, not on the non-privileged group to disprove it.”

For Caitlin Moran, we give her the benefit of the doubt that she's well intentioned, but on the “Fake Feminism” thread we hold the twitter ranters to a higher standard and don't give them the benefit of the doubt that yes, they understand these subtleties too and that they're also just frustrated, hurt and expressing themselves.

I tend to default to “why doesn't this group give me the benefit of the doubt that I'm a good, well intentioned person”, when 1) that should go both ways, I should be giving them the benefit of the doubt that they aren't blaming all (privileged category), but they are commenting on the system, and 2) the fact is the long history and ubiquity of discrimination against the less privileged makes it much more likely that no, they can't give me the benefit of the doubt. Which is why it needs to be earned.