Reading Women Who run with Wolves

Submitted by Purplefootprint t3_zy9kyb in books

As part of a book club, I'm reading Women Who Run With Wolves. It was part of the prompt to read something about woman-power but I find this particular book really problematic. For context, I speak Hungarian and Spanish fluently, speak English (as second language) and also dab into German. I grew up with Hungarian folk tales and Latin American folk tales. Also, in case it matters, I'm a cisgender woman.

From the get go, I find this book as a frame for self aggrandizing from the author, and strange mixes of messages where on one side is all "I raised myself entirely by learning directly from nature" and "the matrilinear chain and tradition is so important". The view of "woman" in this book seems quite constricted to mother-women, with strong emphasis on "women being nurturing and loyal". And then the message of women having this tremendous power that's feared by men, often also talking about pulling the power or the magic from the ovaries.

On top of all of this, there's a taking of folk tales and churning meaning from it, that not necessarily is what she claims to be.

So this is my issue: I believe all people are equal, men and women have skills, capacities and "magic" in them and neither is greater or better than the other. Also, trans people and cis people are all people and none is greater or better than the other. So, there the book, with its pulling towards the cis gender woman and creating an us-vs-them scenario, where only the woman seems worthy, powerful, feared and mistreated is problematic. Messages like "when a woman becomes a Wild Woman nobody can hurt her" or something to that effect sounds problematic to me.

So, is there something in this book that I'm missing? Am I misreading something? Is there a context I need to check first to understand it better?

31

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Trick-Two497 t1_j26fpus wrote

Just to address the part about trans people, let's remember that this was written over 30 years ago. It was a much different world back then, and it's a bit unfair to judge her for not being politically correct in terms of the way we understand gender today. I think it would be fair to say that this part is outdated and therefore problematic in today's culture.

Also, not sure of your age, but please remember that attitudes towards women and equality were also quite different 30 years ago. Perhaps this book served a purpose that was important then, but again, is now outdated?

13

Purplefootprint OP t1_j26y51j wrote

Thank you for your comment. I was indeed an adult in the 90's, but I do not live in the United States, nor lived there back then. I did suspect there was some cultural element coloring her writing, so I was wondering if maybe the author was immersed in a cultural environment where this reactive-female, still strongly bound to the patriarchal role models was the goal-feminine.

3

Trick-Two497 t1_j28nqju wrote

We are still very patriarchal here - that's how they took away abortion rights. And they're already working on taking away birth control.

2

JogiesFosties t1_j24ndra wrote

In the past, this book had a large impact on me. I grew up very conservative and religious, with very strict traditional gender roles. I read this book right as I was starting to turn away from my religion, and found the different take on womanhood to be super impactful for me at that time in my life.

BUT, that was several years ago. I've tried to re-read it more recently, and had a difficult time looking past those problematic areas you mentioned. For my job, I work with a lot of transgender and nonbinary folks. So I now find the strict binary language around gender (cis-woman or cis-man) described in the book to be incredibly off-putting.

Depending on your comfort level and the openness of your book club to talk about these things, I think this could he a really interesting discussion to have with your book club.

12

Purplefootprint OP t1_j24y6we wrote

Thank you, I like your idea. The book club is an ongoing one, and it has a lot of young women who have found a wealth of great advise in these pages. Maybe there are cases where "if it works for me, what's the damage?" kind of thinking excuses a text that brings also a message that reads a lot like extremism. However, as you mention, in a more mature group, diverse, it would be an interesting reading for discussion and also to shed lights on things we currently don't see.

3

LizzyWednesday t1_j25tdir wrote

It was published as a reaction to the men's movement (think Iron John and shit like that), which was itself a reaction of 2nd-wave feminism ... and it was really popular with a certain type of woman in the late 1980s/early 1990s.

It was one of the books my mother read in the year leading up to my parents' divorce, so I've never actually cracked the spine.

10

Bookanista t1_j27m35j wrote

All people are equal, but women face structural sexism. So if women want to believe their ovaries are magic. Have at it.

10

Purplefootprint OP t1_j2cjur8 wrote

Indeed women are subject to sexism in many areas of life, but is "magic ovaries" and/or "men fear us because we are so powerful" the way to go? From my perspective, that sounds like an escape, a way to distract people in general from facing the real problems and working to solve them. I can believe with all my might that, if I concentrate hard enough, and as the Universe, I'll be able to command Mjölnir, but that still won't fix the wage gap or the lack of real job opportunities for women, or the disparity in domestic life and household responsabilities. (Even if it were cool to toss Mjölnir around and have it come back to me upon comand, unlike my keys).

1

boxer_dogs_dance t1_j24na2w wrote

I remember when this book became popular but never read it. Self help books are often just about making money from book sales. Thank you for the review. I won't read it.

8

Purplefootprint OP t1_j24xq6s wrote

I don't usually turn to self-help books precisely because I have a similar view about them as you do. Recently I even had a psychologist suggest me to read a self help book and "take what works". Though I understand that approach, I find it problematic because often the questionable parts might bring into question the validity or the soundness of the foundation upon which the "working parts" stand on. The whole book should be cohesive, it's not a bag of tricks with working parts among a lot of debris.

3

EidolonSteps t1_j25uuxk wrote

In the self help books I've read that I've found useful (one of which was from a therapist) they generally have "taking what works" baked into the text themselves. From what I've heard this is not common (hence my general hesitancy to read them) but a good one acknowledges everyone is different and addresses possible causes and solutions, so you're inherently only taking what works.

2

gleaming-the-cubicle t1_j24xiwd wrote

It was written in the 90s by a Jungian psychologist so it's pretty much exactly what I would expect from that worldview and time

I think Jungians are spooky weirdos who seem to believe that dreams and character archetypes are more real than actual reality

6

Purplefootprint OP t1_j250dzt wrote

Something I found strange was the way words were being used to impress. For instance, even though the book was written in the 90's, the author uses "afear" instead of "afraid", or mixes in words in other languages (mostly Spanish, Hungarian and some German", and then translates herself in a way that doesn't make much sense. In this sense, for instance she uses the word "Anlage" (German) to mean "what will be" or "potential", but if you look it up in a dictionary, that's not what comes up. Also uses the Hungarian word tüz (and that's not written correctly), which means "fire" and says its spirit.

In her analysis of fairytales, I guess she builds on the fact that many don't know the original story (I have never heard Vasilissa translated as Vasalisa, as Vasilissa is the feminin of Vassili, and we talk of Vassili, not Vasali), and enters changes (I knew the tale as Vasilissa the Beautiful, not the Wise https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasilisa_the_Beautiful ), and then spuns an analysis about who represents what and what thinks this or that, or how the characters feel and so what does that mean, without actually explaining how come does she get to those conclusions. For so many references, the book doesn't provide much of a reference, or at least my copy doesn't.

I wouldn't know if she represent the view of the 90's, or at least that's not what I remember of that time (I was immersed in the X Files back then, and electronic music), but be it as it may, it seems to be more hoo-ha than actual research and tested knowledge.

3

gleaming-the-cubicle t1_j251v59 wrote

>the way words were being used to impress

Yup. Jungians also seem to think words have actual magical powers. And they don't need references, they have vibes which are much more powerful and true

5

yapcat t1_j24ndp2 wrote

I think you understand it incredibly well. I see it as self-important pabulum. Encountered a quotation from it on a fortune cookie and looked it up, bought the book. Should have read reviews first. DNF, no regrets about it either.

5

BeneLeit t1_j260dm6 wrote

I couldn't finish when I tried several years ago. It was always being referred to as the epitome of women's empowerment, and so deep and meaningful, etc. I felt like I was really missing something, having never read it!

And then I tried, and gave up in frustration. Soooo many words, so over the top, so pretentious. I could not get past the writing style and general vibe.

I'm sure it has some valuable stuff in it, and I totally get that for some women, it might really hit the mark. Not for me, though.

(Ironically, I felt more empowered by giving myself permission not to read it! 😆)

4

Purplefootprint OP t1_j26yos0 wrote

That's also what I heard! A book about claiming your power back. However, a book where claiming your power back stands on an "us vs them" scenario doesn't give you power, but an scapegoat.

5

bisleybisleybisley t1_j27wic0 wrote

I read it at the beginning of the pandemic, so a couple years ago now, and didn't find the same us vs. them rhetoric that you did. I also saw the stories describing more of a masculine and feminine dichotomy or spectrum, rather than the idea of man or woman. I also found the author's enjoyment of words delightful, but I can see how that might seem more like she enjoys the sound of her own voice, if that makes sense.

I appreciate your take, and I am curious if I would also be more critical of the book if I reread it today.

3

Ok_Aioli1990 t1_j252xe1 wrote

I don't read self help books either,I can usually tell what's in them from the blurb or title. They are all the same more or less. Just different window dressing

2

uyhkogfrgbjj t1_j25fte0 wrote

>in case it matters

It doesn't.

2

mikeatgl t1_j24rdls wrote

This book was recently recommended to me, and I debated reading it but decided not to because I was getting similar vibes. Really appreciate your review.

1

Purplefootprint OP t1_j24yjay wrote

I have found some polite reviews as well, that only made me curious about the book, without specifics. I'm glad I was able to help you.

2

planetheck t1_j261ens wrote

These problems are so typical of second-wave feminist stuff.

1

Montgomery_Lovejoy t1_j25zq1r wrote

I didn’t get very far into it because it sounded like a female Jordan Peterson.

0

That-Requirement-285 t1_j28o1mn wrote

Jordan isn’t Jungian. Although he has a lot of Jungian beliefs. Clarissa is much more interested in ‘spirituality’ than he is.

1