Our Shared Shelf discussion

Hi everyone

I'm really enjoying this read and would never have picked it up myself.
I don't know that I subscribe to the Jungian view of psychology but I try to read with an open mind.

I LOVE that this book is about empowering and setting women free; but I wanted to ask if anyone else feels it's a bit problematic about having this notion of intrinsic 'femininity'?
As in, that directly contradicts other feminist writing like the Butler idea that gender is a construct, and the work feminists have done to get rid of this idea of the feminine mystique and women being this mysterious, almost otherworldly creature. And if there is this 'intrinsic femininity', what does that mean for trans women? Also it seems to paint certain things as more 'feminine' for example domestic care (although obviously it also encourages women to run wild too!) but I kinda struggle with that, as I don't think those tasks can or indeed should be gendered, and we're doing so well at making society realise things like that should be shared by men too.

I think my personal answer is to enjoy the stories as allegories, myths and cultural anecdotes offering empowerment, but not to view it as complete (i.e. it doesn't really sit with the issues I've mentioned above).
Does anyone else have any ideas / views/ ways of reconciling these problems?

I really wish I knew what Emma thought about this too!

PS. I haven't finished the book yet, so maybe it will address these things!
Edit: having finished the book, I didn't feel they were addressed, but there have been some interesting contributions and weighing up of these issues and whether it's an issue in Estes' work below.

B xx

As a man I have no problem seeing the feminine in women. It does appear to be a trait in its own right. Separate from strength or notions of attractiveness for example. Emma I see as very capable woman but also feminine, at least as I define it.

Now is it inherent or a construct. It is at least in part a product of personally, itself a construct but there maybe genetic factors at play also. I have known trans women who are feminine some not has with standard females.

In terms of the book I don't think it matters how a person thinks and acts decides if they are woman. So same would hold true if you are wild woman. How/who you are being with others decides what you are to them.

I have been thinking of "intrinsic femininity" not as a gender-based notion, but as a notion of embracing what is inside ourselves already, or in a sense, embracing our femininity as a way we identify ourselves, not a way that others identify us.
You bring up an interesting point, however! I can see how one would struggle with these notions, and I am curious as to what others have to say.

This struck me too, especially in the introduction when she talks about characteristics that women and wolves share (being relational intuitive, devoted, stalwart, brave, and so on). Although her description isn't entirely in line with what the West considers to be "feminine," it seems to me that defining the innate characteristics of women takes away individual women's agency in choosing to be that way or not. I'm curious to hear what other people think!

In any case I think your idea of reading these stories/ideas as one aspect of empowerment but not the complete picture is a great way to approach this book.

I think it comes down to chemistry. Men and women run on different chemical ratios. Testosterone and estrogen being the two most famous, but there are many more. When they get out of wack, it causes a person to have all sorts of issues: anxiety, depression, rage, etc. This is why so many trans women (and men) feel "better" on hormone therapy. Their brains are running on the correct chemical ratios, finally, and they can start the process of overcoming the mental issues that have plagued them (*Not all trans people, of course, please don't take offense if this doesn't apply to your journey. That isn't my intention at all.)

Personally, I think gender is both intrinsic (chemistry) and a construct (the random crap society associates with it). This book celebrates the intrinsic...and that's kinda fun and different from most of the books we read. :)

I agree with comments above that have suggested this intrinsic femininity is less about physical gender and more about an inner feeling. It is relevant for anyone who reads her words and feels them. I subscribe to the belief that all humans have feminine and masculine aspects to their energy, their Shakti and Shiva (Sally Kempton's Awakening Shakti speaks beautifully to this). And Women Who Run With The Wolves is allowed, and able, to speak to the wild feminine in anyone that picks it up, regardless of how they identify with gender. Even men.

It's possible that it is difficult for some men (given the bloke culture that seems to dominate so many countries) to consider themselves as having inner feminine qualities, more so perhaps than it is for woman to consider their masculine qualities. I really don't know. I have found it useful in my own growth and understanding of self to investigate the masculine aspects of my own being, celebrate the constructive ones, and learn how to marry them to my own femininity in order to feel whole and find my strength. Perhaps this works for all gender-types, and perhaps Women Who Run With The Wolves offers an analysis that can help people reflect on their own feminine energies regardless of sex and physiology.

I haven't studied Feminism, so I can't comment on how this sits with other formed theories and ideas. Ultimately, I haven't found anything offensive or deconstructive so far in this text, so the parts that I find deeply moving and transformative I spend as much time absorbing as I can, and anything that doesn't speak to me I move past.

I'm slowly making my way through this one and enjoying it...It's a lot to process though...

I am also slowly making progress through this book. The writing is small and it seems that it takes the same time to read through one chapter as it would normally take me to read 3. I can usually read a book in 2 days but this one will take much longer. That being said, I am enjoying looking at the more complex workings of a woman's psyche. I remember when the book was first made available. At the time I was working and attending college full time, working on a nursing degree. So read little else than research books. Looking back on the person I was then I don't think I could have appreciated it the way I do now or understood it as fully. I have had more life experiences and come to terms with many issues that actually pertain to the workings of my psyche. I can now look back and realize from reading the book how this evolved. The story of Bluebeard was very informative for me. I feel this is a book which will take awhile for me to digest but it will also stay with me and help me to continue my journey as a mature woman.

I came to say that I don't find it as much of a "feminist novel" as some of the other books I have read, or that have been on this group's list. Many of the stories don't really seem to have empowering female characters, and then the author goes on to describe something that I don't really connect with. I don't enjoy it as much as I had hoped, and I think with less commentary that is, "this is the way I see it and so this is the way it is." So yes, I do believe there is a problematic nature to this book and the interpretation of the myths that is placed on us.

Note that I've just been skimming, and I don't really plan on finishing the book.

I am only a few chapters in, but I can see what you're saying. I think a lot of it can be up for interpretation by the reader.

I won't pretend to be well read or educated in this subject, but besides hormones I believe feminine and masculine traits are mostly just social constructs. I am a woman, both in sex (biologically) and gender, and personally I have struggled in the past trying to label myself as feminine; is my temper a sign of male aggressiveness or female moodiness? Is my desire to lead a male trait of dominance or a female trait of bossiness/nagging? I long ago gave up on trying to decide whether I'm "girly" or not this way, but it did teach me that a lot of these personality traits typically assigned to one gender are actually seen across the gender scale. I do however feel overwhelmingly feminine, whether that feeling comes from society, biology, or spirituality.

That being said, I don't think you need to be biologically born a woman to have a "wild woman" inside of you. I'm sure there is a close male equivalent, and a genderless equivalent as well. And just because one was born with male genitalia, does not mean they are not a woman just as much as I.

So really, I feel it's up for interpretation. I think all genders can relate to the themes of at least some of the book and stories, even if not the specifics of her writing. I haven't come across anything encouraging domestic duties for women yet (or maybe it just didn't register), but that would not sit well with me. Perhaps I'll come back with a different view of the book after finishing it.

Jenny, I loved reading your post and especially your point about Shakti and Shiva.

I'm so glad you started this thread B because I was thinking the same thing! I'm only 25 pages in however I'm getting concerned that the archetype of the Wild Woman as a concept of intrinsic femininity is too much like the 'Eternal Feminine' which Beauvoir discusses in The Second Sex - this is basically the idea that femininity constitutes a number of archetypes, on a basic level that women must be maternal, sexual, innocent etc. However as Beauvoir points out it is a myth because these things can't coexist - the way in which they have been socially constructed is irreconcilable. We can already see this dichotomy in the idea that La Loba is linked to death and creation, as a woman.

However, if we look as terms differently - the way 'wild' is reclaimed as meaning natural not unruly for example, then perhaps the idea of the wild woman becomes less problematic? For example if 'innocent' is taken to mean natural, then sexuality can become innocent rather than mutually exclusive with it.

I do however still have an issue with the idea of an intrinsic femininity meaning women are maternal however - this is something that women are still combatting today even in Western society as not all women can, or want to be, mothers, yet it seems to be expected of them as it is 'natural'. I'm hoping the book goes further to deal with this kind of issue as I have only just started it.

Also I think it is important to remember that an archetype is about one single figure or example - not plurality of experience - so I hope she confronts this to illustrate that there can be more than one experience of the 'Wild Woman' - I do feel the different names given by different cultures may be a start towards this.

Currently very conflicted by this but hopefully reading more will help me work through some of these issues!

Ellen wrote: "I'm so glad you started this threat B because I was thinking the same thing! I'm only 25 pages in however I'm getting concerned that the archetype of the Wild Woman as a concept of intrinsic femini..."

Yay I'm so glad you understand what I mean! EXACTLY... And I really thing The Second Sex is such an important text, so I struggled with this one on that basis... as you say, I know Estes means it in an empowering way, but the fundamental linking of womanhood with death and birth and mothering, for example, directly goes against these ideas.

However, saying that, if you ignored the 'femininity' and 'masculinity' labels she uses (which I think are maybe problematic even in Jung as he has his concepts of the anima and animus) and just read it as about authenticity - instructive in the sense of listening to your inner nature, whatever your gender identity may be, rather than conforming to societal pressures, it is perhaps better...?

Having finished it, I didn't find that she resolved these issues for me. I've looked for writing by other figures like Steinem to explain it to me, but she gave this a rave review comment.

So I'm not entirely sure how to resolve this. I'd love to know if you find any articles discussing it. I haven't found any further material by Estes to clarify.

I'm forced to conclude that I can enjoy it for the mythos and fairytale elements, and it's advocation of being authentic and 'wild', but that the ideas of femininity and masculinity for both Estes and Jung just don't sit well with De Beauvoir and Butler. :/

I found this quote from her ("The soul has no gender. I wrote a book about women because I am a woman. If I were a man, I would have written about that.") that seemed to save the issue of inherent masculinity/femininity slightly (although I'm not sure it tarries with her writing!), but other parts in the interview I found even more problematic - like she cringes at the label 'feminism' apparently, and she disapproves of the label 'Ms': While she urges a liberation for women, Dr. Estes cringes at the label of feminist.

"No Latina woman would be called Ms. -- that's an invention of middle-class Anglo women," said Dr. Estes, who was born to Mexican parents and adopted by immigrants from Hungary in rural Indiana. "Latina women are proud to be called Mrs. That simply means that we have a family."

Which is fine if she doesn't like it, but I found it offensive, as I don't want my title defined by my marital status! I'm not ashamed of having a family, but men have neutral titles so I don't see why I can't too.

One more post, sorry guys! But just found an article which explains Estes herself is consciously differentiating her idea from the idea of societal constructions of gender.

So maybe they aren't reconcilable because they're different views. She believes there IS a 'feminine nature' (below, and as Wolves describes). This is what de Beauvoir and Butler argue against.

(from http://www.newsweek.com/call-wild-wom...)
"Estes confesses that she "feel[s] a little bit shut out" by traditional feminists. After decades of women arguing that the distinction between the sexes was a male-made conceit, Estes-along with Camille Paglia, Madonna, the punk rock Riot Grrrls and the New Age goddess worshipers-now contends that there really is a feminine nature, to be celebrated and not reasoned away. Says Jeanne Strieck, a Seattle counselor who is running a Wild Woman workshop next semester at Bellevue Community College (one of several such groups sprouting nationwide), "I want to reclaim who I am as a woman who is different from men." The Wild Women are often dismissed by hard-line feminists as flaky. But Estes remains hopeful. "I would like," she says, "to see a chair set at the feminist table for the inner life." Her book and its broad appeal suggest that day is not far off"

My way of reconciling them is accepting them as contradictory, basically! I still agree with de Beauvoir but I can still enjoy Estes's fairytales and stories and parts of her feminine that I happen to identify with (as personally I do feel I have a 'feminine' nature in Estes's descriptions, in many ways... but I don't think all women do, and they don't have to have to BE women or feminine, if that makes sense!), so I can accept it on a personal level without believing her theory to be ultimately and universally true!

Briana wrote: "I found this quote from her ("The soul has no gender. I wrote a book about women because I am a woman. If I were a man, I would have written about that.") that seemed to save the issue of inherent ..."
I agree that being a Mrs. only denotes my marital status, not the person that I am. Ms. became popular in the 70's,80's and is OK with me. I am a professional in my own right. I had my own life, independence and successes before I married. Marriage doesn't define me. My husband is my partner and a part of my family but I remain an independent woman in my own right.

I'm about half-way through the book and to answer some of the concerns above, I think this book can very easily be read from the perspective of whatever gender you are. Yes, the "woman" is used continuously throughout, but there are many times that Estes refers to any number of scenarios where the role is different. She uses terms like "family, lover, friend" when describing reactions and very often the use of the word "soul" or psychology terms are used to describe the "subject" who is experiencing things.

That being said, I mostly find it difficult to understand the psychology. As a woman, I don't relate to much of the experiences she is describing, but much of that is due to the fact that I don't necessarily agree with Jungian psychology and it seems really out there to me what Estes is describing.

So I'd like to put it out there that the "Wild Woman" is, as Estes generally uses it, soul-based, and no matter what gender construct you subscribe to, there is plenty to take away from this book - and plenty you can probably leave out. I don't know much about her personal beliefs as far as the term "feminism" goes or the existence of the "feminine" but since I am a woman, I do understand and see things she describes simply because much of the book discusses how society reacts to the gender of "female" and the past is the past and how women were/are treated generally is still very much the same, so there are big take-aways when it comes to that.

One example: In her chapter on self-preservation, she describes how the soul can be diminished when it is shunned or forced to change by the culture/community because of their expected standards. Even if you don't subscribe to the current culture's "gender construct" you can see this in action today. Estes writes, "For a wild child born into a rigid community, the usual outcome is to experience the ignominy of being shunned. Shunning treats the victim as if she does not exist. It withdraws spiritual concern, love, and other psychic necessities from that person. The idea is to force her to conform, or else to kill her spiritually and/or to drive her from the village to languish and die in the outback" (p. 240). This, to me, is a very real situation that I think many women are familiar with and does happen to our gender more often than not, but there is room for any "wild child" who reads this to recognize themselves, even if they are not a woman or subscribe to a rigid gender norm.

Sara wrote: "I'm about half-way through the book and to answer some of the concerns above, I think this book can very easily be read from the perspective of whatever gender you are. Yes, the "woman" is used con..."

Hiya! I agree it can be read by whatever gender you are - te things I think are problematic (for me anyway!) are the notions of certain traits being "feminine" and certain traits "masculine".

Her references to 'woman' aren't the issue at all for me, more her ideas of women and the feminine as inherently possessing certain qualities.

The Jungian psychology, as with other psychological schools of thought can seem quite out there but I find it tough not to understand, but just because I don't agree with Jung. If anything I'd subscribe more often to a more Freudian tilt, but everyone has different ideas and theories! And the Jungian idea of anima and animus, masculine and feminine elements in everyone, is an issue for me, as I don't believe traits are inherently masculine or feminine, which is cool, i guess Estes & I agree to disagree on that matter :)

Totally agree with your final paragraph too on embracing our authentic nature and the dangers of shunning parts of the self due to societal impositions etc :)

MaryJane wrote: "Briana wrote: "I found this quote from her ("The soul has no gender. I wrote a book about women because I am a woman. If I were a man, I would have written about that.") that seemed to save the iss..."

That's my feeling too really. I have no problem with those who wish to be Miss or Mrs either, it's just for me, I don't want my definition to be by marital status. I don't object to Estes's stance in the interview on being a Mrs - thats cool - i just don't like how it seems like a slight on those who want to be Ms. Ms isn't a denial of family. It's just individuating yourself from your marital position! Men are Mr before and after marriage and still have families.

As Emma says, feminism isn't a stick to beat other women with. Freedom of choice, right?! And that Estes interview made me sad that she seemed to slag off my 'wild woman' who wants to be a Ms hahaha

Briana wrote: " but other parts in the interview I found even more problematic - like she cringes at the label 'feminism' apparently, and she disapproves of the label 'Ms': While she urges a liberation for women, Dr. Estes cringes at the label of feminist.

"No Latina woman would be called Ms. -- that's an invention of middle-class Anglo women," said Dr. Estes, who was born to Mexican parents and adopted by immigrants from Hungary in rural Indiana. "Latina women are proud to be called Mrs. That simply means that we have a family."

Which is fine if she doesn't like it, but I found it offensive , as I don't want my title defined by my marital status! ."
..."

Briana, you bring up a lot of interesting points, many of which we (OSS and Feminists) are constantly reviewing and revising. One point I did want to touch upon was your usage of "Problematic" and "Offensive" when describing a person's preferred title.

Dr. Estes very clearly states that her use of a title is based on her heritage as a Latina. She is not dismissing others choice in using MS vs MRS. Nor is she championing the world to keep MRS. She, as a Doctor, in fact, doesn't use either!

So in a NY Times article dated 1993 Dr. Estes mentions:

"Women who have always been taught to be nice do not realize they have these options," she said. "When someone tells them to stay in their place, they sit and stay quiet. But when somebody is cornering you, then the only way out is to come out kicking, to beat the hell out of whatever is in the way."

In my opinion, her work on wild women is not necessarily a move towards intrinsic femininity, so much as the opposite.

I ask that we all keep in mind that Estes was 47 when the book was published in 1992.

This book was an culmination of more than 20 years of work as a trauma specialist for war veterans and war children. It is safe to assume most of her patients were victims and/or survivors.

Another thing to keep in mind was that she was working with patients that made up much of her work during the 70's or 80's. A time where a single, divorced woman with children was not considered a strong, independent person so much as someone who messed up. Her patients were probably shammed by society and given little reprieve as compared to single mothers today where they are a touch more supported. Again - not having a man in your life was still a big deal - see Murphy Brown and the 1992 Dan Quayle remarks!

How does this color her narrative of women?

She fought against the idea that the ideal woman, the epitome of feminine grace followed the old adage that a woman's place is in the kitchen. That women, like children, were better to be seen but not heard. Estes rallied against a notion that she, and others like her, as a single, divorcee with children, that she was not given the same respect as a man. That she had to be quite while the men were talking.

She worked hard to reclaim what feminine meant in the 1970's - 1999's. She reminded a generation of women - her patients / survivors as well as her readers - that feminine can mean beautiful but angry, decisive and curious, crafty and all sorts of things because women have always been made up of these traits.

Briana wrote: "As Emma says, feminism isn't a stick to beat other women with. Freedom of choice, right?! And that Estes interview made me sad that she seemed to slag off my 'wild woman' who wants to be a Ms hahaha."

Ah, I see. On that note, I ask that you look at the date of the article. 1993. To give you some context: Vagina Monologues was first preformed in 1996. Feminist / Ms in the early 90's left a bitter taste - more so I would argue, than in today's palate.

Perhaps this is something Emma could ask - would Dr. Estes consider herself a feminist now. And if not, why not?

Pam wrote: "Briana wrote: "As Emma says, feminism isn't a stick to beat other women with. Freedom of choice, right?! And that Estes interview made me sad that she seemed to slag off my 'wild woman' who wants t..."

It would be good if she did ask yes!

I saw the date but don't really excuse it on that basis to be honest... obviously it sets a context but I still think the view is bad!

MaryJane wrote: "I am also slowly making progress through this book. The writing is small and it seems that it takes the same time to read through one chapter as it would normally take me to read 3. I can usually r..."

I feel exactly the same way! It is a very, very slow read for me, which is frustrating as I'm used to reading quite fast so I tend to get bored.

I've only read three stories so far (plus the introduction, which was the hardest read ever), and although Estes' analysis is interesting, everything always seems to come down to how women have to develop and listen to their intuition... Bit much to write 600+ pages on this statement, I think.

I'll continue reading this slowly, but I'll probably start reading something else at the same time as well as I can't focus on just this book.

Britt wrote: "MaryJane wrote: "I am also slowly making progress through this book. The writing is small and it seems that it takes the same time to read through one chapter as it would normally take me to read 3..."

I felt like that in the beginning too, although eventually I felt it got more interesting... totally agree though - initially a bit of a wordy way of being like INTUITION INTUITION WILD WOMAN INTUITION :)

Pam wrote: "So in a NY Times article dated 1993 Dr. Estes mentions:

"Women who have always been taught to be nice do not realize they have these options," she said. "When someone tells them to stay in their ..."

Thanks for sharing this, I like this perspective.

Pam wrote: "Briana wrote: " but other parts in the interview I found even more problematic - like she cringes at the label 'feminism' apparently, and she disapproves of the label 'Ms': While she urges a libe..."

I disagree - I think the way it was stated implied something offensive to women who do choose to use it. She implies it is disowning of 'family' if you read the quote, and her dismissal of it goes beyond her personal choice and basically slams it as an option. There are many Latinas who do choose to use Ms too, in fact... I appreciate her cultural perspective is part of it, but I take issue with her wording, perhaps it is a case of poor articulation.

As stated, I agree she can pick whatever she wants, Dr, Mrs, anything, and I have no issue with those using Mrs. But I do continue to find her dismissal of those of us who prefer Ms offensive, personally. But everyone is entitled to disagree!

The link for those who are curious.

http://www.nytimes.com/1993/02/28/wee...

Briana wrote: "Britt wrote: "MaryJane wrote: "I am also slowly making progress through this book. The writing is small and it seems that it takes the same time to read through one chapter as it would normally tak..."

I agree. I am almost through it and it does get somewhat more interesting. I'm glad I was able to borrow it from the library. Not a keeper for me.

Pam wrote: "So in a NY Times article dated 1993 Dr. Estes mentions:

"Women who have always been taught to be nice do not realize they have these options," she said. "When someone tells them to stay in their ..."

I think highlighting the time it was written is interesting Pam but for the opposite reasons you state - Beauvoir and Friedan were both writing about the social oppression of women in the 1950s and 60s and radical feminists such as Greer were working in the 90s - as an academic she would have been aware of these works. As you say she is trying to reclaim 'feminine' but I think this is more in-line with the post-feminism that started growing in the 1990s and flourished throughout the 2000s. There was a general sense of discontentment with the radical feminist ideas of gender as a construct - so many women wanted to reclaim femininity as part of their identity. I also think trying to pit different disciplines against each other doesn't work - her work is in psychology which I feel often neglects wider social historical factors looking at certain phenomena - whereas most feminist theory is embedded in Sociology. Basically, I can see how someone might find this work empowering, but I feel a lot more progressive work had already been done which Estes doesn't acknowledge and which I find more value in. (I'm only 70 pages in so I may become more sympathetic to her viewpoint as the book progresses - this is just my opinion so far!)

Ellen wrote: "Pam wrote: "So in a NY Times article dated 1993 Dr. Estes mentions:

"Women who have always been taught to be nice do not realize they have these options," she said. "When someone tells them to st..."

This is true, thanks so much for sharing this - definitely makes sense to me and helps explain some of it, even though obviously I don't feel that discontent re: gender as a structure so I still would take issue with that - but this helps situate the text much better for me, thank you!
As you say, she comes at it from the discipline of psychology too, rather than sociology, so she acknowledges works and issues within that realm rather than other socio-cultural epistemologies.

Thanks for this perspective!

I have the exact same problem when reading the book!! I felt that Estes' Wild Woman Archetype really excludes e.g. transgender people and the fact that women have certain character traits as opposed to men was problematic to me.
But by reading the book and this thread I think I might conclude that Estes merely has a different point of view about this than me. Which is why I will also, as many in this thread already wrote, enjoy the stories as empowering stories for whomever they might empower. I enjoy them and disregard the labels she mentions like femininity. Afterall, I could identify with the Wild Woman Archetype and it helped me to remind to 'be wild' and behave how I feel rather than how I think I am supposed to act. And this is a very important message the book holds in my opinion.
But I simply can not wrap my head around an innate femininity that women have. So I just read it with that in mind and hope that everyone that can identify with the archetype described, be it female or male, does not feel discouraged by the fact that the book seems to be limited to humans with vaginas.

Analena wrote: "I have the exact same problem when reading the book!! I felt that Estes' Wild Woman Archetype really excludes e.g. transgender people and the fact that women have certain character traits as oppose..."

Yes! 100% with you. That's exactly how I feel about it. I'm glad it's not just me haha.
I've enjoyed it but there's no escaping the fact I don't agree on the innate femininity idea (which I don't think is just a problem for trans women - as someone born a women, it annoys me when some argue you have innate mothering/caring/death connections/concerns etc. I don't think these traits are gendered. Some men/women/other have them, some don't).

But I also agree with you that as long as you try to disregard her labels and agree to disagree on that issue, they can still be empowering in the sense of releasing your authentic self rather than pretending to be certain things for society etc.

I think what Estes is getting at is that there are innate things in women that, like wolves, are a part of our make-up. not in a gendered way but in a genetic-specific way. There are things that women since the beginning of time are programmed to experience. A loose example is women have periods. Genetically that's what happens in a female body. I don't understand much of what Estes says (the psychology is way over my head) but what I think she's trying to get at is that because women experience these things in the body there are other things they experience that society has forever tried to shut up or told them they don't or shouldn't experience. I think that's the main point Estes is getting at. I'm pretty far in and I haven't yet heard her say that women are feminine, at least, not expressly in those terms. She says women are many things, including fierce, loyal, etc.

I will say that, as a woman, I don't really get much of what Estes talks about, so it certainly isn't something that I'm on board with. There are some things that I think ring true - mostly when she speaks on a societal/cultural level about how women are treated. When she gets into the experiences-bit, there's very little I get out of it. I also am not sure who the target audience is for this book. It's quite old, so I don't know if, when it first came out, it was targeted just for women. There are plenty of passages in the book that make me think so. But there are other passages that are not gender-specific that I think speak to anyone. You don't have to read the "she" "her" or "woman" in it. Often, that is implied, but not constantly there.

Not sure if any of this is clear, but I wanted to toss that out there. I think this discussion post is really important because this book is so heavy handed and very different than any of the books we've read so far.

Ellen wrote..." her work is in psychology which I feel often neglects wider social historical factors looking at certain phenomena - whereas most feminist theory is embedded in Sociology. "

An excellent point. Thank you for offering the comparison.

I'm assuming that this distance also goes into what Briana was getting at: That​ the feminist movement was evolving from second wave into the third wave. More progressive texts, as you stated, were out there at the same time as Wolves.

Though, I have to ask, how readable were these progressive texts. I.e. on an adoption curve, who was reading them?
- feminists
- early adopters
- early majority
- late majority
- laggards

I admit, as a child in the 90's in a strict conservative household: Madonna was a bad word. I had to push myself to read the Vagina Monologues just a few months ago, so I would consider myself as a laggard / late majority (if you squint).

I would argue that, and look to you for guidance, that while there were more progressive texts by feminists, that those texts weren't that accepted amongst the masses ( early or late majority).

Whereas Estes book, as it did not have the feminist stamp, if you will, appealed to a wider audience.

Would you consider Estes work to be a gateway feminist text? In other words does Wolves pique interest to expand feminists thought without being intentionally a feminist text?

This book came out in the 90's. Women made strides during that era in several different ways. Corporations were becoming more prominent in the work world. Although they had always been there, it seemed as though with more women entering the work force, it became a more competitive work place. Also it seemed at least to me that wages were becoming better for women. I worked in health care at the management level and although males made more money for equal jobs, our wages were for the first time more competitive with men. I think women at that time were coming into their own since the surge of feminism in the 70's. It seemed for awhile that we were gaining respect in the workplace. I do understand much of the book. I am a little older and lived through many changes in my life. I better understand the decisions that I made and the book more or less explains why I chose to make these decisions. I was unaware at the time of the psychology behind it at the time,but I can look back and it makes sense. I didn't howl in the literal sense but I did learn to assert myself and increase my self esteem. I did go through many of the changes she describes and can relate them to the changes I made in my life. I have now finished the book. I think for me, that I couldn't have understood or appreciated the book at the time it was published. For me it was better to read it after the upheaval in my life happened and now be able to use her examples to put it all in perspective. I think that this book is timeless as it describes a woman's way of thinking and dealing with her approach to life and the obstacles she faces. I think it also describes the power in a woman from her total mental makeup established at the beginning of time as she has sifted through the many layers of her psychological make up. We are very complex and able to use this power to make our lives and the lives of others around us so much better. To me, feminism isn't radical. It is using the many gifts that we have to compete in a male world quietly. Having the ability and education to compete for jobs and not to settle for the easy road. Not feeling inadequate in our own shoes. Not being afraid to be independent and face confrontation with a calm voice, well prepared to overcome the obstacles that are placed before us. Also having compassion for the others that we deal with but never losing sight of the person we are.

Like other people have mentioned, there does seem to be an emphasis on intrinsic femininity of women and the role of women as life creators, particularly in the introduction. It did seem trans exclusive to me and I felt that the author's wild woman archetype was actually stereotyping women into certain roles, contrary to her claim of liberating them from societal constructs.

However, on page 20 of the introduction she writes:

"To try to diagram her [the wild woman], to draw boxes around her psychic life, would be contrary to her spirit".

page 21 of the introduction:

" The Wildish nature does not require a woman to be a certain color, a certain education, a certain lifestyle or economic class...in fact, it cannot thrive in an atmosphere of political correctness, or being bent into old burnt-out paradigms. It thrives on fresh sight and self- integrity."

I have only read three chapters so far but I found Estès contradict herself in many places. Hopefully things will become clearer as I read more.

MaryJane wrote: "This book came out in the 90's. Women made strides during that era in several different ways. Corporations were becoming more prominent in the work world. Although they had always been there, it se..."

I agree with much of this too, thanks for sharing! However when we're discussing 'problematic' elements, we're not disputing the good bits of psychology but the theoretical difficulty of the fact that she discusses some traits as intrinsically feminine (which personally I disagree with in line with some other feminist texts) but obviously not everyone feels this way!

But yes, I relate to many parts of this in relation to certain upheavals and aspects of my life.

Pam wrote: " Ellen wrote..." her work is in psychology which I feel often neglects wider social historical factors looking at certain phenomena - whereas most feminist theory is embedded in Sociology. "

An e..."

Thanks for your response Pam! I definitely get where you are coming from in terms of accessibility but I'm not sure your adoption curve model really works for this - all of these writers (Estes, Beauvoir etc) have a comparatively small readership which is predominantly middle-class and very academic. I'm not sure any of them will be read by the 'masses' in reality.

I had little intention of reading any feminist theory until I did my MA, so I think it is a fair presumption that even university educated people aren't necessarily going pick these books up. I think more people who want to educate themselves on Feminism now might pick them up - but they are all still largely academic, I doubt any are going to hit wide readership the way a fiction text would.

On your other question I personally found Friedan so much more accessible! She was really readable and all of the theory made immediate sense - I really didn't have to think as hard as I do with Estes. I'm struggling with the psychology in this not going to lie!

Also I would argue that Butler's idea of gender as a social construct has been adopted into mainstream contemporary feminism, so while her original texts are incredibly tough to read, the theory itself is very accessible.

I'm from the UK so I don't know if Estes' work carries more weight in the US but this book was quite difficult to get a hold of over here which would make me question again how accessible it is (I know that has little to do with her writing but more how it has been culturally received) therefore I don't really see it as a gateway text. Also now since feminism is becoming mainstream and it is 'cool' to be feminist I think people are more likely to turn to more overtly feminist writers.

If I was to do an Emma style book drop to get people reading feminist non-fiction, the texts I would pick would be 'We Should All Be Feminists' by Adichie and 'The Feminine Mystique' by Friedan, as I think these are the most accessible that I have read.

However, I know everyone is different so maybe its just that Estes' style and approach works for you but not for me.

Hey everyone, I know this topic trailed off but I've recently started reading another book which has actually shed loads of light on this for me.

It's The Power and it's basically all about teenage girls suddenly developing a superhuman power to manipulate electricity, with massive implications obviously. The most interesting part however is that the girls all seem to be responding to some kind of inner voice which is awakening this power in them.

I'm not very far through so I don't know if the parallel will continue but I feel like this has given me a lot more understanding of what Estes is getting at (perhaps I respond to ideas in fiction better!) and I'm actually keen to pick the book back up now that I feel it has clicked a bit more - I gave up when I was really struggling with it.

I just thought this may be of interest to those of you who had the same reservations which I did!

I haven't read the book just yet but I was also wondering this. However, I feel that the intrinsic femininity is something that exists maybe in all people? Men and women both have some kind of balance of masculine and feminine in them I think. I think what is problematic about that is that society associates these traits with gender and biology. I think that we can recognise both traits as empowering in different ways and try and find them inside ourselves, while still fighting for new terms and definitions. I hope that makes sense.

Gabby wrote: "I haven't read the book just yet but I was also wondering this. However, I feel that the intrinsic femininity is something that exists maybe in all people? Men and women both have some kind of bala..."

Ah I see, that's an interesting way to look at it... yes, so you're saying all traits exist in both, and the problem really is the labelling of them as masculine/feminine and ascribing certain ones only to one gender?

Ellen wrote: "Hey everyone, I know this topic trailed off but I've recently started reading another book which has actually shed loads of light on this for me.

It's The Power and it's basically..."

Yes, The Power is amazing, I read it before this one...
It doesn't really resolve my issues with Estes' book (as above), but I see what you mean about them sharing some connecting ideas :) The Power would be such a good Our Shared Shelf read, actually!

"That being said, I don't think you need to be biologically born a woman to have a "wild woman" inside of you. I'm sure there is a close male equivalent, and a genderless equivalent as well. And just because one was born with male genitalia, does not mean they are not a woman just as much as I. "

A "genderless equivalent"? May I just hug you?:)

I am having a hard time finishing this book. I was really excited about it, but when I start reading (other than the short stories) I start nodding off or zoning out. I am not a fan of her writing style, and she really overstates her point. I do agree that this is an interesting topic and contains themes that need to be discussed, but I don't know if I'll be able to finish it. I hardly ever have issues finishing a book.

I felt the same way. It did get better but wasn't a keeper for me.