Book irritation

This next book coincidence is less cute.

I recently mentioned that we had a hold on the Marie Kondo book at the library.

https://sporkful.blogspot.com/2019/02/organizing-and-tidying-up.html

I did not mention in that post that I have seen a lot of discussion on Twitter regarding criticism of KonMari, along with things that criticism misses and ways in which the criticism seems racist.

I wasn't writing about that yet, though I had posted an article on Facebook precisely because of that.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/marie-kondo-white-western-audineces_us_5c47859be4b025aa26bde77c

I also did already know this had happened, though I did not see the article until today:

https://globalnews.ca/news/4926946/barbara-ehrenreich-criticized-xenophobic-tweets-marie-kondo/ 

I didn't mention it in that other blog post, because not only was the Marie Kondo book on the way, but I also had books on hold for me from Elaine Showalter and Barbara Ehrenreich. I believed I would have more to say after I read them all.

I will say that until I looked up the article, I did not know about Ehrenreich's previous tweet. In light of that, it looks like her real issue is imperialistic in nature, but when she realized she had gone over the top there, she tried to transfer it more to a curmudgeonly personal dislike of one person.

I guess Katha Pollitt handled it best, because instead of deleting tweets she added one promising to consider the issue more closely. Perhaps to be completely fair I should have gotten a Katha Pollitt book out too, but I am not enthusiastic about it because the Ehrenreich and Showalter books were so annoying.

At first I questioned the headline of the article because it referred to these women as feminists. After reading their books I question whether Ehrenreich or Showalter are. However, the headline says "white feminists", so for the brand of feminism that does not realize how enmeshed in patriarchy it is and that often misses key points that would lead to meaningful discourse, yeah, that's fair.

That is also exactly how the books failed.

To be fair, I was already planning on taking Showalter's book - Hystories: Hysterical Epidemics and Modern Media - with a grain of salt. I had seen a reference to her writing on Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, and I was curious about that, but also skeptical based on what I had read. Seeing that she treated it with alien abductions, recovered memories, and the Satanic ritual abuse panic seemed at least a little questionable.

Before I proceed, I am going to admit to having fallen for the Satanic ritual abuse thing myself. I saw a TV movie in 1989 (Do You Know the Muffin Man) and they said that's where most child abuse comes from. I was like, okay. I was also 17 years old.

I don't regret it now. Not only did I not do anything with the information, but I think having accepted that as plausible - despite how very implausible it was - and learning later that it was ridiculously, flagrantly wrong was ultimately good for my critical thinking.

There was not enough critical thinking in Hystories. There were little things that were way off. Thinking that finding out that other girls had eating disorders (especially pre-internet) did more to spread eating disorders than pressure on physical appearance and the limited things that are within many teenagers' control was a big one. Another was finding it ironic that is was political conservatives and religious fundamentalists that spread the SRA panic when it specifically targeted daycare. That's not ironic; that's logical. (It didn't seem to be delivered as a joke.)

Beyond that, a lot of areas that would have seemed critical for understanding weren't really explored. I thought to some extent it was because so many of these issues were issues of leading the patient, and even though she kind of acknowledged that Freud did that, maybe she was a Freudian and just couldn't bring herself to condemn him. Showalter isn't even a psychologist. Her specialty is Victorian literature. I can see how there would be ways of viewing that through a Freudian lens, but disengagement should still be possible.

Overall, though, I think I find her to be too invested in the status quo. My issue was the lack of depth, but I think that lack was the result of the hold the patriarchy has on her.

I had similar issues with Ehrenreich, but she should have been able to do better. She considers herself a "myth-buster" and "muckraker". She has participated in the Democratic Socialists of America. That's someone who wants to fight the power, not fold to it, right? That was not evident in The Hearts of Men: American Dreams and the Flight from Commitment.

She did get somewhat better in the last chapter, which had more of an economic focus, but most of the book was sociological and psychological. It was really not good, and desperate for some intersectional analysis. I guess that makes her a "vulgar" socialist, though, which makes the DSA a good fit.

All of that also makes their tweets make total sense, but not in a good way. You can see why I am not eager to try a book by Katha Pollitt, even though she may be the best of them.

KonMari's book was delightful, but I am still reflecting on that. I will probably write about it more.

Otherwise, it feels like all of February - Black History Month - has been a solid stream of white people needing to do better. I may also write about. I will see how it goes.

For now, the book I am currently reading is good, and that is a relief.