Katelyn’s Comments (group member since Jan 07, 2016)

Katelyn’s comments from the Our Shared Shelf group.

James, that last statement was out of line. Referring to someone's contribution as crazy is disrespectful and rude.

Everything I said in that post is absolutely true, and if you don't think so, you're being too idealistic.

You don't have to explain anything to me. Gender is one of the main topics that I study and that I wrote about for my master's thesis. It is socially constructed. Sex and the system of organs and body parts that determine it, are obviously biological, and that is what society has often structured gender roles around. But sex and gender are two separate things. And feminism seeks to liberate all genders from their biological sex.

Also, even if there were no studies done about patriarchy, that doesn't necessarily disprove the concept. Research is also affected by patriarchy and other cultural systems of discrimination. These systems determine which issues get the most funding, the best researchers, the most time, the greatest dispersion, etc. These systems can even affect the outcomes!

James, masculinity and femininity are cultural constructs derived from reductive stereotypes of both genders. It has nothing to do with both side of an individual. Saying that we have two sides in that sense reinforces the gender binary. Individual men and women both have a plethora of characteristics, both considered "masculine" or "feminine." Not to mention, different cultures assign different characteristics to genders, further disrupting the assumption that these characteristics are natural. They are all constructed.

James, I have explained before the ways in which feminism also addresses men's issues through the deconstruction of stereotypes, which affect men and women.

I think the real problem is that there are men who don't want to be involved in helping others unless the movement explicitly states that it will benefit them, too. Sounds selfish to me, frankly.

Even when given a special invitation through initiatives like HeforShe, it's not enough for those who cannot bring themselves to empathize with others or help others without a direct benefit to themselves.

Even if feminism had no benefit for men, it would still be important. Because when we raise money for heart disease, that doesn't mean don't want to also cure other diseases. When the ALS bucket challenge goes viral, we don't accuse it of stealing proceeds from other causes. But men who do not realize feminism is a benefit to all, and oppose it because they believe it would take away benefits from men, are simply wrong. There is not a lump sum of gender-based benefits that we are stealing from men. Equality seeks to give rights to those who need them, not take rights away from those that have them.

But the fact of the matter is that feminism DOES benefit men. If you don't think that's true, then it is your prerogative not to participate.

Adam, I explained above what I mean by femininity. This thread is busy so I understand you may have missed it. And sorry if you did read it, I didn't mean to assume. Anyway, short response is that I was using femininity in the sense of its cultural construction. I'll try to make that clearer when defining patriarchy in the future!

James, the idea that gynecentrism both explains that everyone has the point of view of a woman AND that women are revered and protected... Those ideas are contradictory. Putting women on a pedestal is not seeing things from their perspective, it is making assumptions about them. Even supposedly positive stereotypes are problematic in the grander scheme of gender binaries and discrimination.

Furthermore, the assumption that men have the ability to see things from women's point of view is actually a problem because it has the potential to contribute to practice of men in power making decisions on women's behalf. If we believe men understand women from a woman's perspective, that potentially makes it okay for them to make all kinds of decisions about things like reproductive health.

And by protecting women in the way you describe, it reinforces this decision-making practice by men in power thinking they can make choices for women with the excuse that they are protecting them. Which relates back to the issue of women being prevented from participating in the front lines in the military, as Erin discussed above.

Ana, she did indeed write it ;) there was a funny buzzfeed article titles something like "we read the gender swap version of twilight so you don't have to" and it includes some short excerpts. It's really quite bizarre.

Adam, yeah, I agree. Society tends to exaggerate how much hormones and whatnot affect our day-to-day behaviors. I'd only mention that masculine and feminine has to do with gender, not biological sex. We should make an effort not to conflate them.

Absolutely James. That's the point. Stereotypes about both genders have constructed the concepts of femininity and masculinity, reducing people to their gender identification. Men and women both can be criticized for being too masculine, too feminine, or not enough of either. But femininity has been the more devalued within this binary. Men and women both suffer as a result of this in a variety of ways.

Adam, are you referring to my definition in what you said about femininity? I agree with you. I use femininity as a term for characteristics and behaviors that have traditionally and culturally been seen as more appropriate for women to exhibit. But that doesn't mean that these associations are correct, and people can have "feminine" features regardless of gender. If the feminist movement succeeds in eradicating these gender roles, biases, and stereotypes, we hopefully won't need to use the words masculine and feminine anymore at all. In fact, they're redundant, aren't they? There are always more description words that would get the same message across, oftentimes more accurately and efficiently!

James, again, many of us have written posts giving you an explanation of patriarchy. All of which you have ignored, continuing to use the definition that you think is correct. It is not correct.

Patriarchy is a culturally constructed system based on the devaluing of femininity. Femininity is a term that may be applied to anyone, regardless of gender. Therefore, feminism fights patriarchy with the goals of dismantling the system that causes gender discrimination. Though we mainly discuss women's rights because women are disproportionately affected by gender discrimination, the eradication of harmful stereotypes, gender roles, and biases helps women and men, masculine and feminine, gender queer, etc.

That is the definition. The term patriarchy should not be offensive to someone unless they believe in and support the ongoing devaluing of femininity in both women and men. It doesn't seem like you do, so no one here is using it in an effort to offend you (unless they are using the term incorrectly).

If I may, How Sex Changed by Joanne Meyerowitz was a great read. It discusses the early cultural and medical progress in America through discussion of the first "famous" American transgender woman, Christine Jorgensen.

Not sure if it might be too academic for the entire group to read, as I know we have a lot of young people and a varying degree of English ability (not sure if this book has been translated). But I think it's very worthwhile if you all are interested.

I don't think James is really a troll. But he is not participating in the discussions in an equitable fashion, and by that I mean, many of us have written thoughtful, respectful, and insightful responses to his concerns, but rather than responding to them directly, he continues to repeat his opinions without indicating that there has been new information suggested to him.

It's important that we don't try to remove people from the discussion before giving them a chance to fully engage with the conversation at hand. In fact, I think it's a good exercise to have healthy debate so that we can arm ourselves for real-world challenges against our movement! But it is important that BOTH sides consider the other's thoughts carefully and respectfully. I'm not sure that everyone (not just James) has been doing this.

I think it would be beneficial to have community standards put into place, perhaps posted "sticky" at the very top of the discussion board. That way, there is more of a definitive reason to remove someone who is being disrespectful. I'm sure Emma and additional mods have something in mind!

James, I'm going to keep calling you out for refusing to listen to the thoughts of others.

Many of us have given thoughtful responses to your claims about how feminism does not address men's issues. Gender stereotypes negatively affect everyone, therefore, by addressing them, feminism helps everyone, not just women. I've addressed longer responses to you a few other times, so I am not going to keep writing long paragraphs for you to continue to ignore. But this is the basic answer to your concerns. If those concerns were genuine, you would engage in a conversation rather than repeating yourself without acknowledging others' comments. If you refuse to engage with others, how can we ever move forward?

Sarah- I used to feel that way about writing in books, too. But when I went on to graduate school, I realized that using sticky notes alone made my books very cluttered and wouldn't close all the way! So I got over it, haha. I'm still not one to write in fiction books (sometimes maybe something on the blank pages at beginning or end, not in the actual story), but in non-fiction, I find it impossible not to do it now. When I recently reread a book that I had taken notes in, I found myself reexamining my own thoughts and having completely new ideas, and it was really helpful to compare the different perspectives I had the two times I read the book.

Miri- One of my stocking stuffers for Christmas this year was a package of name plate stickers for my books. I'm so excited to use them!
And I like what you said about rereads. I think that's so important, especially if a significant amount of time has passed and you're at a new stage in life. I like rereading novels I read in middle and high school for that reason!

Damian wrote: "For me it's definitely more than that, it's the equality for all genders not just the binary ones. It's about regarding femininity just as strong and important as masculinity. About empowering wome..."

Yes. Feminism in its most basic form is about equality, but I don't think this is truly possible without first deconstructing the gender and sexual binaries that are in place across most of the globe.

Chelsey, I really like all the quotes you chose. They resonated with me as well. And thanks for sharing that about your own childhood. It is amazing how we sort of envision what "childhood" is meant to be and what it represents, but when we actually get to discussing it, no one's way the same, and as a result, no one's idea of what it should be is the same, either, whether they liked their own or wanted to rebel against it.

P.S. I just relistened to that NPR interview earlier today and can confirm that she talks more about her mother and specifically attributes her mental health troubles directly to patriarchy. So definitely take a listen if you're interested in more! I'm hoping to have a conversation about that interview specifically here:
NPR interview with Gloria Steinem about My Life on the Road

Thanks for your input, D!

I like that you mentioned the importance of a title. A poorly chosen title can sometimes set the entire book up for failure!

I also agree about background information on the author. I guess for a biography or fiction, it's maybe less important. But I try to avoid anything that claims to be "history" that isn't published by a university press or written by someone with appropriate degree.

Thanks for the example you gave, they're really insightful. And good point about introductions. They're usually extremely helpful. Sometimes they leave me quite confused, and it's not until the subsequent chapters when the author goes more in depth I figure out what they meant. And then I wonder if there could have been a way for them to explain more clearly!

James wrote: "In terms of the systematic oppression women are no more oppressed then men are and in some cases of the law men are actually held more accountable to the laws then women are."

Men are sometimes held more accountable to certain laws as a result of insidious gender stereotypes, which result from patriarchy, which devalues femininity. When men are culturally categorized as stronger, more powerful, more intelligent, all of these things result in unequal treatment in the eyes of the law, as men are held more accountable for their actions. This is one of the many men's issues that come about as a result of gender discrimination, and one of the many problems feminists are trying to correct.

James wrote: "Ash wrote: "James wrote: "It is a short watch, No one has to watch it, but it would be very much appreciated. "

Is this it? Because I didn't watched the video, but read the whole interview instead..."

What do you mean by "main heads" of feminism and "the women who run it"?
Don't you think it's a bit reductive to assign authority of a global and diverse group of people to a single person or small group? There are certainly feminist leaders who are producing great work in various media, but to choose one person as a "main head" of feminism is wrong. And honestly, based on your refusal to acknowledge any of the points brought up here, it seems awfully convenient that the name you've decided on as "the woman who runs feminism" is someone you feel is an easy target for your arguments.

I'm getting very overwhelmed by the multiple topics i've been commenting on, so I don't remember if it was on the this thread or another that you've been commenting on, but I provided you with a simple explanation of what patriarchy is. I have redirected your attention to it more than once. You still have yet to respond to it. If you're not going to engage with other people's points of view, please stop using the term patriarchy because it is clear that you are not interested in learning its real function.