Our Shared Shelf discussion
Apr—How to Be a Woman (2016)
>
Upsetting and offensive quotes
date
newest »
newest »
"Even the most ardent feminist historian…can’t conceal that women have basically done fuck-all for the last 100,000 years. Come on — let’s admit it. Lest stop exhaustively pretending that there is a parallel history of women being victorious and creative, on an equal with men, that’s just been comprehensively covered up by The Man. There isn’t."I found this quote incredibly dismissive of the work that women (and other people who aren't cis men) did, both in making history and in rediscovering it from a feminist or another non-mainstream perspective. Also, no serious historian really claims there's a "parallel history".
There's a thread here: https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...
"Here is the quick way of working out if you’re a feminist. Put your hand in your underpants.
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."
This quote is cissexist/transphobic. It also ignores that many people (including trans people!) choose not to consider themselves feminists because mainstream feminism fails them.
"With burlesque, not only does the power balance rest with the person taking her clothes off…but it also anchors its heart in freaky, late-night, libertine self expression: it has a campy, tranny, fetish element to it."
again, transphobic. And using the word fetish here objectifies trans people.
"What is feminism? Simply the belief that women should be free as men, however nuts, dim, deluded, badly dressed, fat, receding, lazy and smug they might be."I actually like the quote at first, but then I noticed how ableist it is. Besides, while men generally experience less discrimination for being "nuts, dim, badly dressed, fat, lazy", it still happens. They just don't face systematic oppression for being male, that's all.
We have this thread about ableism: https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...
"Overeating is the addiction of choice of carers, and that's why it's come to be regarded as the lowest-ranking of all the addictions. It's a way of fucking yourself up while still remaining fully functional, because you have to. Fat people aren't indulging in the "luxury" of their addictions making them useless, chaotic, or a burden. Instead, they are slowly self-destructing in a way that doesn't inconvenience anyone. And that's why it's so often a woman's addiction of choice. All the quietly eating mums. All the KitKats in office drawers. All the unhappy moments, late at night, caught only in the fridge lights."
I found this fatphobic (but nowhere near as bad as a few other quotes). I posted more thoughts here: https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...
why is everything nowadays seen as transphobic? according to basic biology there is men and there is woman and the thing that separates the two are vaginas and penises. if you are trans then that means you identify as one or the other gender but do not usually posses the right equipment. feminism is becoming a joke because all of the need for being political correct, having to include all while rejecting opposing views and getting offended at the slightest of things.
Mod
That said,
Marina wrote: "If you haven't read the book, you can browse the quotes here on goodreads."
I'd remind everyone that pulling quotes out of context is not the best way to discuss a book. Additionally, perhaps it is best to allow members who have read the book (or are currently reading) to take the lead on discussions for this reason. It seems inappropriate to be scrolling through quotes on Goodreads, essentially going out of one's way to find quotes (out of context) that seem problematic. I would caution members against this. Especially if the OP is asking for minimal discussion/only reactions. Quotes that are misinterpreted will likely be challenged by members who did read the book and are aware of its larger context.
For example, I'd argue that regarding the first quote you list (and I'll keep this brief, since there is an entire thread about it already), though it is understandably objectionable to some, it does not seem like a fair criticism to say that serious historians wouldn't be claiming a "parallel history." She doesn't accuse historians of this, she merely suggests that her readers stop assuming that there is. And given the type of book this is, the number of serious historians reading the book would be relatively small. So it would be worthwhile to consider the audience that the book as a whole, and therefore this quote, is targeted for.
Mod
I'd argue that political correctness is a different issue from being respectful of people's dislike of certain uses of language. That being said, there are definitely instances when people are overly sensitive. But it is important to respect other's wishes and experiences. Another issue is when mainstream feminists decide what is problematic for marginalized groups to which they do not belong, which is part of the reason I think feminism has been developing that reputation, and why many people (as Marina points out in her second post here) choose not to identify as feminists despite agreeing with the stances in general. But we shouldn't confuse these issues with the legitimacy of trans folks' experiences, or those of women of color, or disabled women, etc.
Also, I think you are conflating gender and sex. Man and Woman are genders, not biological. And there aren't just vaginas and penises, there are also people born intersex.
Marie wrote: "why is everything nowadays seen as transphobic? according to basic biology there is men and there is woman and the thing that separates the two are vaginas and penises. if you are trans then that m..."Marie your facts are in error there. You may believe that this is basic biology, but a number of doctors and medical researchers will not agree with you.
Sure, I'm all for letting people who've actually read the book lead here. I just don't think that those who haven't should be silenced. besides, some words are just never okay, no matter the context (apart from being used by a fictional character (or real person!) in whom it's not seen as real behaviour)As for history, I first found the quote in this review, written by someone who's read the book: https://feministtexicanreads.wordpres... I think it's dismissive no matter what audience we're speaking of (though statistically this book is likely to have fewer LGBTQ+ readers - surely this doesn't mean it's okay to be dismissive of them)
Also, the quotes on goodreads are generally going to be quotes people liked, so I don't think there's much danger of misrepresenting them. There are also many longer quotes, and I definitely encourage anyone who's posting without having read the book to find the longest version of the quote and see it in context.
Marie, I've replied here: https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...
TBH, that's exactly the kind of comments I was asking everyone not to post, at least not in this specific thread. If someone posts a quote you liked here, or if you think it's no big deal etc, find another place to reply, please.
Marie wrote: "why is everything nowadays seen as transphobic? according to basic biology there is men and there is woman and the thing that separates the two are vaginas and penises. if you are trans then that means you identify as one or the other gender but do not usually posses the right equipment. feminism is becoming a joke because all of the need for being political correct, having to include all while rejecting opposing views and getting offended at the slightest of things."The mixing up of sex and gender has already been addressed. I'll stick to the second part of this comment.
It's no joke to treat others with respect, no matter their background. I'm giving everyone the benefit of doubt until they show me they aren't worthy of it. I also see no harm in learning to accept multiple lifestyles, even when we are of a particular conviction (that ours is the one and only - for us).
In a global world, there is absolutely no need to create even more friction, but we could all make efforts to learn to live side by side with people, who choose clothing, sexual activity, religion, and lots of other things in a manner that we would not.
Including all means just that, accepting that others have freedom of choice, even when they would choose differently. This approach in an enlightened world means we don't have to pick only one way, but can accept multiple ways - in peace and harmony.
With that said, I wish everyone would grow thicker skin when being under attack. There will always be people, who challenge us, who thrive on making others hurt, and our primary goal as individuals the way I see it is to grow, expand our minds, turn things to something positive, let go rather than dwell on the negative. It's great to discuss problems in the system, but none of them will be fixed permanently during our lifetime, and therefore we should also focus on living in the moment whilst becoming as strong as is possible. This includes not getting offended at everything, even when there could be cause to feel offended. Choose one's battles and all that. Also, having different opinions isn't equal to crapping on someone else. I can disagree with a good friend, and agree to disagree, without having it affect the friendship in any way.
Small minds need to belittle others, restrict others, treat others badly, to lift themselves up and to boost their egos. That isn't the intention of the feminism I am part of.
Mod
I certainly did not mean to imply that members who have not read the book should be silenced or discouraged from participating.
I simply would caution people from purposefully looking for quotes that they find offensive, by reading a list of out-of-context passage on Goodreads. Frankly, it is not a productive way to have a discussion, and not really in the spirit of the community that as a book club we are trying to foster.
To clarify, I wasn't advocating looking for quotes in order to deliberately get offended or upset. I don't think this is something we have much control over. Also, I know this varies but I'm personally very sensitive to words, so I can find the literal wording upsetting even if I know it's meant to be positive. So that makes the context less relevant. I also kinda assumed that most people who choose not to read the book will still check out some reviews and quotes
I agree that the quote about women's historical contributions is insulting as well as plain ignorant. If you look properly, women have contributed a great deal throughout all of history, but their names have been buried, their contributions downplayed or ignored all together. Womens history cannot be separated from the history of humanity, we have been warriors, poets, rulers, inventors, scientists, politic thinkers...everything I also think there are a few transphobic comments, including the ones mentioned here
And yes I have read the book.
Mod
I really do need to read Moran's book, not exactly despite the criticism that it's getting in this and other threads but rather because of said criticism, so that I can have my own informed opinion. In that sense, therefore, I feel like I agree with what Katelyn said - quotes can be taken out of context, even when they're somewhat lengthy and compiled by people who were most likely highlighting them because they found them to be true...by the way, I have not checked those quotes, but it wouldn't surprise me in the least that, irregardless of the reason they've been quoted by GR members, they have led to pretty intense debates outside these boards.
It was also outside of these boards, too, that I saw an instance of (intentionally?) misunderstood quotes that can only reinforce my opinion. I follow The Economist on Facebook and if you do as well, you may have noticed that they will sometimes post quotes from relevant, inspirational people from all fields. Well, one day they had a quote from Gloria Steinem talking about marriage...
'In fact, women's total instinct for gambling is satisfied by marriage.'
I must stop here for a bit to make a disclaimer - I do not know whether this comes from one of her books or is just part of a speech of hers, However, if The Economist had fully quoted her, it should have read like this:
"Someone asked me why women don't gamble as much as men do, and I gave the commonsensical reply that we don't have as much money. That was a true and incomplete answer. In fact, women's total instinct for gambling is satisfied by marriage."
...Let me tell you, the reaction of most of those who commented on that post to Steinem's quote was just as true and incomplete as the quote itself was. Sadly, I would say that many preferred it that way.
Back to Moran and the quotes that have been shared in this thread so far, if I were to judge them standing alone like they are here, I most definitely do not enjoy the one about women doing fuck-all for whichever amount of time she states. That is simply not true. Then there's the one that Marina found fatphobic:
"Overeating is the addiction of choice of carers, and that's why it's come to be regarded as the lowest-ranking of all the addictions. It's a way of fucking yourself up while still remaining fully functional, because you have to. Fat people aren't indulging in the "luxury" of their addictions making them useless, chaotic, or a burden. Instead, they are slowly self-destructing in a way that doesn't inconvenience anyone. And that's why it's so often a woman's addiction of choice. All the quietly eating mums. All the KitKats in office drawers. All the unhappy moments, late at night, caught only in the fridge lights."
I think she's not entirely wrong in her analysis of food addictions and the way in which they are often closely linked to emotional problems. However, yeah, I do not feel comfortable with her automatically assigning this behaviour to fat people. I'm not sure whether I would have tagged this quote as 'fatphobic' - to me, it's rather a matter of over-simplifying a whole issue. Food addictions and, overall, unhealthy relations with food do not necessarily lead to the victim of said issues becoming fat. What about bulimics? What about people who will not necessarily put on weight because of whatever internal (e.g. metabolism) or external reason (e.g. working out reallyyyy hard out of guilt or simply habit) but are still deep in there? Also and back to fat people, what about those who are entirely OK from a mental health point of view, and eat healthy, but are just prone to overweight? I found her approach rather reducing.
However, my conclusion is still the same - I do not believe I can fully express my opinion without reading the book(s) first. :)
Thanks for your comments :))) Well, just like sexism or homophobia, fatphobia can be quite subtle. We're not so used to taking it seriously yet. I hope you can find the time to read the thread about fatphobia and thin privilege.
I'm not sure if it's okay to comment with counter-argument on the quotes? I'll delete if not welcome.Ana wrote: ""Overeating is the addiction of choice of carers, and that's why it's come to be regarded as the lowest-ranking of all the addictions. It's a way of fucking yourself up while still remaining fully functional, because you have to. Fat people aren't indulging in the "luxury" of their addictions making them useless, chaotic, or a burden. Instead, they are slowly self-destructing in a way that doesn't inconvenience anyone. And that's why it's so often a woman's addiction of choice. All the quietly eating mums. All the KitKats in office drawers. All the unhappy moments, late at night, caught only in the fridge lights."
I think she's not entirely wrong in her analysis of food addictions and the way in which they are often closely linked to emotional problems. However, yeah, I do not feel comfortable with her automatically assigning this behaviour to fat people. I'm not sure whether I would have tagged this quote as 'fatphobic' - to me, it's rather a matter of over-simplifying a whole issue. Food addictions and, overall, unhealthy relations with food do not necessarily lead to the victim of said issues becoming fat. What about bulimics? What about people who will not necessarily put on weight because of whatever internal (e.g. metabolism) or external reason (e.g. working out reallyyyy hard out of guilt or simply habit) but are still deep in there? Also and back to fat people, what about those who are entirely OK from a mental health point of view, and eat healthy, but are just prone to overweight? I found her approach rather reducing."
I've spoken with a huge number of overweight/fat people from all over the world at this point, and a vast majority have had something emotional to deal with in their lives. Some use the expression self-medication, others comfort eating, yet others stress eating, but once we/they all have dug deeper, most have had various issues usually involving unique to them insecurities and/or traumatic life events.
Income level often is visible in what people eat (too much of "healthy", or too much of "junk" - not that I like either label but that is a discussion for another time), but not the number of excess calories ingested.
The thing with fat people is often that they wear their problems in public. And food addiction is a lot of things, not just over-eating, but on a global scale, obesity is an epidemic, not anorexia or bulimia.
(Since we're talking disorders, I'm encouraging people to look up bigorexia, too, which is kind of the opposite of anorexia, even though it involves building muscle rather than eating too little etc.)
Discussion is certainly welcome but imo it's better if it happens in the related threads, or it may be necessary to start a new one for a specific issue.I think we mostly agree here really. You use the wording "vast majority" yourself - the issue is mostly that Moran generalizes too much. That's what I see in pretty much every quote from the book, and the generalizations make it relatable for most readers while marginalizing the rest.
Have you also talked with thin people about comfort eating?
Don't know if a non-mod can ask for specific rules to be followed, but if that's okay, I'd ask you all not to discuss other people's reactions and especially not to belittle their emotions/upset. Our reactions are what they are, we can hide them or think of our future reactions and influence them, but we can't really change them when they happen.
If you haven't read the book, you can browse the quotes here on goodreads. Also, feel free to post links to existing threads about the topic or to external articles.
I'll post some quotes an example.