Our Shared Shelf discussion

What did you all think about how this was handled in the book? I finished, and even though she never names it intersectionality, I definitely felt that she tried to make the connectedness of equality movements a big theme. She made it very clear that you can’t fight against gender inequality without also thinking about racial inequality, socio-economic inequality, homophobia, etc.

However, I felt like there was a clear oversight when it came to including transwomen. That was disappointing considering her past comments, and I felt like I became hyper-aware after the cab driver story, especially. I mean, I don't think she should have excluded the story at all. It just threw me that that was the only inclusion. Would love to get others' opinions though!

I think she has some issues with the transgender community. That story struck me as being particularly gender biased.

Hm, yes. I think that with that as the only mention of transgender women, it comes across a bit negatively.

I have to say, however that at least for the first part of the story, I was with her, and even after it is revealed that the driver was transgender, I didn't fault her for her initial assumptions. As a young, single woman who has lived in different cities and often takes cabs, I would have had the same negative reaction to questions about underwear from a male-presenting cab driver. So as far as the first half of the story goes, I don't blame her.

That being said, when she finishes the story and it kind of comes across as a "don't judge a book by its cover" anecdote, it felt a bit essentializing. My reaction was kind of "Wait, what? Oh... okay... sooooo..." but then she was onto the next thing. I really liked the format she had of having many quick little anecdotes in a row, but in this case it felt a bit rushed and I don't disagree that she could have spent a bit more time on that.

Katelyn wrote: "Hm, yes. I think that with that as the only mention of transgender women, it comes across a bit negatively.

I have to say, however that at least for the first part of the story, I was with her, an..."

I totally agree.

I was delighted to read how supportive she was towards the activism of Native Women. She helped them to meet up, organize and articulate their needs in the National Women's Conference in Houston, 1977. (p. 61)
Also the Prelude is a good example of how intersectional her work is: "We are a diverse group of women - a Cherokee activist and her grown up daughter, two African American writers and one musician, and me."
I think her interest in intersectionality became also very clear every time she was concerned about whether the audience reflects the neighbourhood or not.

Katelyn wrote: "Hm, yes. I think that with that as the only mention of transgender women, it comes across a bit negatively.

I have to say, however that at least for the first part of the story, I was with her, an..."

That's not the way I saw it. She still considered the driver a FREAK when she was a transgender woman. "You can change your body, but can you change your character?" She ASSUMED the guy was trying to dominate her and stuck WITH that assumption even after the revelation. Everything IN the story is based on assumptions. And it's a double standard to consider sex talk appropriate small talk to have with a woman but not with a man under controlled non threatening circumstances. Even the threat was assumed. Mind you, I'm not outright condemning. As Victor Hugo said(and I'm paraphrasing)"Even the best of people have their blind spots."

Of course it's different when it's a woman driver joking with a female passenger about sex. If I got into a cab and the male driver started questioning me about women's lingeri, I'd be pretty convinced he was a giant weirdo, but I'd also be worried about my safety.

I genuinly hate pulling this card, but I'm not sure many guys can understand the position that women are in. We are told from a very young age that we need to act in a certain way to avoid being raped, so for many women, every strange man is a potential assailant. Especially if they start asking invasive questions about your sex life (or underwear).
But no one ever tells us not to be along with strange women or that we need to be careful around them. There's a sense of safety in being around other women.
(And to be honest, I'd rather suspect 50 different men of being dangerous than not suspect the one man that turns out to actually be dangerous.)

That first in the book encounter was pretty sleazy especially with the whole 'punishing' thing which, out of context, just made it seem like the driver dragged random passengers into a sexual game.
Even if the driver's a woman now, she still crossed many, many lines in their first encounter, and personally I wouldn't be comfortable around her either.

So, am I to take that to mean you would ALSO rather have 50 innocent men executed as serial killers for being a little different than have one guilty man found and executed? And it wasn't joking. It was full on bragging about past lovers. ALSO, this supposes that there AREN'T any dangerous women.

Jason wrote: "So, am I to take that to mean you would ALSO rather have 50 innocent men executed as serial killers for being a little different than have one REALLY guilty man found and executed? And it wasn't jo..."

If you wanna kill strawmen, be my guest, but at least make them a little plausible.

You'll notice I used the word 'suspect'. Not 'convict' or 'accuse'. Suspecting is not the same as having people executed.
Or if I need to clarify any further: I would rather be too careful around 50 different guys than being not careful enough around the one guy that actually is dangerous.
(In case it needs saying - 'being careful' isn't a metaphor for execution. It's more like keeping your phone in your hand and not talking about sex.)

I'll grant that there is a time and place for such things. Apparently that time and place for women is EVERYTIME and EVERYWHERE.

Ahhhh, if I have to be perfectly honest, I would equally freak out if I took a taxi driven by a female and she started making weird, invasive questions. I would not find it funny, at all, and I would most likely tell her to stop at the next traffic light and hop off. For all I know, she could be into women AND a creeper (unrelated facts, just in case someone takes me wrong), and I don't have to put up with that.
That being said, Astrid had a point with the male driver being potentially more dangerous. To me, it's all about the physical force. A man is likely to be stronger than me and will therefore have it easier to force me to do whatever he wants. Admittedly, though, if someone plans to hurt you, they're gonna do whatever they can to get away with their intentions. However...well, odds are higher for women to bump into a male psycho.
In fact, this is one of the reasons why I oppose online dating, for the most part at least. I just cannot bring myself to trust people that easily. I would hate to meet some random guy from a dating app / the Internet IRL and then find myself in some unpleasant situation. I'm not even talking rape, abuse or murder. The guy assuming he's entitled to any sort of physical contact in the first date would be enough for me to regret everything. I know, I'm bound to end up alone in this technology era, but hey, I can't help it.
Back to taxis and Gloria Steinem and transsexuals. 'Issue' is probably too strong of a word choice here, or at least I'd like to think so, because it would be weird to show so much empathy for everybody and then boom, she's got issues with transexuals. But I agree that she probably does feel somewhat uncomfortable with regard to this topic. There's the taxi anecdote and I think there's something else I read, perhaps in Wikipedia, about some incident that derived from her words and she had to step in and apologise. I'll try and find it.
It would be a pity, in any case. Trans women are still women in every sense of the word - they simply were born in the wrong body. Well, you know, 'simply.' I cannot even begin to imagine the pain and fear coming from such a realisation.

Trans men too, BTW. :) Sorry for not mentioning both in my previous comment.

From Wikipedia:
In 1977 Gloria Steinem expressed disapproval that the heavily publicized transition of tennis player Renée Richards (a trans woman) had been characterized as "a frightening instance of what feminism could lead to" or as "living proof that feminism isn't necessary". Steinem wrote, "At a minimum, it was a diversion from the widespread problems of sexual inequality." She writes that, while she supports the right of individuals to identify as they choose, in many cases, transgender people "surgically mutilate their own bodies" in order to conform to a gender role that is inexorably tied to physical body parts. She concludes that "feminists are right to feel uncomfortable about the need for and uses of transsexualism." The article concluded with what became one of Steinem's most famous quotes: "If the shoe doesn't fit, must we change the foot?" Although meant in the context of transgender issues, the quote is frequently mistaken as a general statement about feminism.[1] In a 2013 interview with The Advocate, Steinem repudiated and apologized for her previously stated views. She stated that "I believe that transgender people, including those who have transitioned, are living out real, authentic lives. Those lives should be celebrated, not questioned. Their health care decisions should be theirs and theirs alone to make. And what I wrote decades ago does not reflect what we know today as we move away from only the binary boxes of "masculine" or "feminine" and begin to live along the full human continuum of identity and expression."

And her op-ed: http://www.advocate.com/commentary/20...

"That's not the way I saw it. She still considered the driver a FREAK when she was a transgender woman. "You can change your body, but can you change your character?" "

I took the cab driver anecdote in a completely different direction, especially this quote, "You can change your body, but can you change your character."

To me, the first conversation about underwear represented an issue of consent. The cab driver dragged Steinem into a conversation that could be deemed sexual due to its content (underwear) as well as the fact that the driver appeared to have orgasmed due to the perceived "punishment" from Steinem. Steinem was clearly giving signals that she was uneasy with the conversation taking place. The cab driver engaged in what could be argued to be a sexual encounter with Steinem without Steinem's consent. By definition, the lack of consent leads me to view this as a type of sexual assault.

In this context, the quote by Steinem about whether changing one's body can change one's character appears in a different light. She seems to be questioning how she should feel about her previous assault in light of the fact that her male presenting assailant has now transitioned and presents as a female. To me this question asks more whether the previous unhappiness of the cabdriver could be excused as due to unhappiness. Do a person's morals stand on context and circumstance, or are we endowed with a certain character which remains regardless of the vessel of our soul?

And it wasn't in the case of the female driver? She started outright bragging about how good she was in bed and it was totally acceptable. Gloria didn't present any desire to talk about sex to her either but it was totally okay. And there are clear signs of an orgasm, whether we're talking males or females; and she's kinda sketchy on whether he exhibited ANY. There's no context and so I'm left to believe it's merely an assumption. But as I said there's a right time, place for that stuff. I'm merely pointing out that for women, it happens to be EVERYWHERE and ANYTIME.

No, the normal social rules apply to women. But there are a number of differences between the situations.

1. As mentioned, many women would feel uncomfortable or awkward if a strange woman talked to them about sex, but, depending on the situation, they could feel downright threatened if a man did the same (this has to do with rape culture and many things that are off subject in this thread).

2. The female cab driver spoke about her sex life, yes, but she didn't ask Steinem invasive questions. The conversation wasn't meant to give anyone any kind of sexual gratification. The male (later female) cab driver included Steinem in something that was clearly meant to arouse him and supply him with 'punishment'; that's completely different than telling someone more than they want to know about your own sex life.

3. You'll also notice that the conversation wasn't 'totally acceptable' - Steinem was obviously not comfortable with the situation. But it's true that she wasn't as uncomfortable as when she was being quizzed about women's underwear.

As Cat mentioned, consent is the key here. The female cab driver overshared, but the male cab driver engaged in a sexual encounter with Steinem without her consent.

As a side note, you might consider turning the aggression down a notch. People are perfectly capable of disagreeing with you without being morally corrupt.

I'm not being aggressive. Aggressive is cursing and name calling. I am debating on whether Gloria is antitrans. That's what these boards are for. Discussion and debate. The woman asked Steinem if she agreed that tantric sex was the key to a happy life or something of that nature. That's attempting to engage her in a sexual conversation.

Jason, I have to admit I'm a bit confused here. You seem to be insisting on a stance (and upset by this assertion as well) that men and women have different "rules" for how they're allowed to act. Is that not a given? And does it not make sense why the two interactions in the book would be received very differently given the context of a society in which the power is heavily slanted toward men? It seems that several people have pointed out the differences between the two interactions, as well as why a woman speaking on the topic of sex to another woman would feel much different to the woman on the receiving end than if the person initiating the conversation were presenting themselves as male.

Jason wrote: "I'm not being aggressive. Aggressive is cursing and name calling. I am debating on whether Gloria is antitrans. That's what these boards are for. Discussion and debate. The woman asked Steinem if s..."

Let me quote: "“I find the path to spirituality lies through
ecstatic sex—and the path to ecstatic sex lies through spirituality—don’t you?”
Thankful that this is a rhetorical question, I just keep quiet while she goes on."

You're not engaged by a rhetorical question since they don't need to be answered.

(If I say 'Daniel Feuerriegel is so freaking hot, right?' I'm not asking your opinion. I'm just telling you mine.)

It doesn't matter. I see it as a double standard based on bias and gender assumptions. I concede that such survival skills are necessary.

I wouldn't say so. Taking security measures does not mean that gender equality will never happen. It just means that, as long as there are risks, you are being cautious.

So when women are cautious because their safety may be at risk, the is evidence that we will never achieve equality?

Last I checked, there's still a large portion of the population that assumes that if a woman isn't cautious, then she was "asking for it."

So, yeah, it's not our responsibility to act totally cool when our privacy or safety are violated, just because we're trying to achieve equality. The systemic barriers and injustices need to be dealt with first.

Our caution is not evidence that equality can't be achieved, it is evidence that we must keep working toward it because it hasn't been achieved yet.

That all being said, I don't disagree that the later "reveal" that the driver was trans seemed dealt with a bit strangely to me, but she shouldn't be expected to apologize for her initial reaction to a (person who is read as a) man's invasive and inappropriate questions within a small space in which he has control.

I'm sorry, in another thread I mention that boys not being able to control themselves is an issue to lay at their feet and not at girls. It's not up to girls to watch what they wear and shield men from any possible provocation because they just CAN'T control themselves. I argued that the truth was that boys are being taught that they don't NEED to control themselves, that it's all up to the women.

I was succinctly told by a gentleman that my assumption is wrong. That since a man not controlling himself hurts a woman it IS her responsibility.

Here, you are saying the opposite. That because a man that is making uncomfortable sexual talk, innuendos, or conversations, is not enough of a reason for women to be worried or cautious.

May I introduce you then to the M&M theory? Not all men are dangerous, not all men will rape, not all men are trying to make women uncomfortable with sexual discussions and not all men are looking to hurt women.

Here, a large bowl of M&Ms. Not all of them are poisonous, only a few. Are YOU going to take a big handful and just hope that none of the poisonous ones are in there? Or are you going to be cautious and suspicious of all the M&Ms.

When it's a life or death issues, as unfortunately it often is, we have to be cautious. Fair? Equal? No, but reality.

We want that to change just as much, if not more, than you do. To do that, we start at the beginning. We start by teaching at a young age what is and isn't appropriate. That EVERYONE is responsible for themselves, and that no, you can not use what someone else wears, or doesn't wear, or how they look or the simplicity of their perceived gender as an excuse for bad behavior. YOUR CHOICE to behave a certain way, and you should be responsible for that.

Sadly that is NOT what we are teaching young people. We are STILL teaching boys that they have the right to a body because they bought dinner. That they have the right to comments and touches based on the length of her skirt. That they have the right to pictures because they can hack a phone or sneak online vids.

SO for now, yes it's cautious of men. Want that to change, we change the narrative. From the beginning.

That's kind of a double edged sword for me. I like horror stories. The more realistic it is, the more fascinating it is. You're right. I already conceded. Men are dangerous. They love TWO things. Violence and sex. My argument wasn't very well considered. But don't pretend there aren't FEMALE horror stories as well. Black widows, child killers, torturers of the elderly, etc. The M&M's argument could go just as well for you as me.

I agree with the originally thread poster. Even in the Bill Maher interview, she laughed along with him when he made the comments about Caitlin Jenner.

In addition, I also fee like there were some micro-aggressions toward fat people on the book, which really bummed me out. I don't expect Gloria Steinem to be perfect, but I do wish she was more inclusive.

*original

I think, like Robert, that maybe she is simply in the wrong generation. She herself said (writing this out of memory, not exact) that one feministic wave was necessary for the next on. Without her fighting for feminism, the LGBT-movement never would have been able to form. So, I think it is the problem that in her time as a rebel, it was too early.

But on the other hand, I would have been uncomfortable, too, if somebody talked about underwear or sex with me. Regardless of phenotypical appearance.