Literary Insights

“If you liked the book, you can purchase it using the links in the description below. By buying through these links, you contribute to the blog without paying any extra, as we receive a small commission. This helps us bring more quality content to you!”

BOOK LINK:

CLICK HERE

The introduction describes the author’s lifelong struggle with severe shame and self-loathing, despite external achievements and finding supportive relationships.
As a closeted queer child in the 1990s, the author learned from public messages that people facing difficulties like AIDS, addiction, poverty were to blame due to a lack of willpower or virtue.
Completing a PhD and coming out as transgender were accompanied by intense feelings of guilt, inadequacy, and fear of being a burden.
The author internalized beliefs that one must be perfect, take full responsibility for problems, and work tirelessly to feel worthy or find happiness.
Efforts to change externally through relationships, career successes, or hiding their identity did not undo the author’s deeply ingrained sense of shame and self-loathing.
The introduction presents the concept of “Systemic Shame” - the belief that one is solely to blame for hardships, rather than systems of oppression, and that problems can only be solved through extreme individual effort and virtue. The author traces how they came to adopt this mindset.
Shame is a normal but unpleasant emotion that comes from feeling one has done something wrong and is a bad person at the core. It demotivates and withdraws people.
Systemic shame goes deeper - it’s a belief system that certain groups are inherently bad or deserving of harm. It is embedded in culture and tells people their identities or disadvantages are their own fault.
Systemic shame convinces people they must personally solve systemic issues alone through extreme individual effort. It traps people in self-hate and prevents collective action for change.
Signs of suffering from systemic shame include constantly judging oneself negatively, ruminating over past decisions, feeling one can only truly relax alone, hyperawareness of stereotypes, taking on guilt for global issues, difficulty imagining a worthwhile future, feeling obligations are heavy but one’s actions don’t matter.
The story illustrates how systemic shame can leave both oppressed and privileged people feeling constantly judged, frustrated, and unable to collectively address real barriers due to disadvantage or oppression. It extracts a heavy emotional toll.
The passage describes a shopping trip where Gary was agonizing over small ethical decisions like which brand of seltzer to buy, weighing environmental and social impacts. This mirrors the character Chidi on The Good Place who is similarly indecisive.
Both Gary and Chidi cope with “Systemic Shame” by over-analyzing every choice, but there are rarely truly ethical options under capitalism. The author uses the refrain “There is no ethical consumption under capitalism” to justify apathy.
However, witnessing Gary’s struggles reminded the author that every product involves real human labor. Blaming individuals ignores the systems that companies and governments create.
Pre-packaged foods fulfill real needs for disabled people or busy parents, but companies exploit people’s situations for profit. Systems lack community support so individuals have to consume more.
Society encourages individuals to behave responsibly while systemic issues persist. Shame is misdirected at small failures rather than laws and incentives that cause injustice. The author resolves to refocus on systemic problems over people’s small transgressions.
Systemic shame refers to the pervasive feeling of isolation and helplessness that many people experience living under oppressive social systems. It convinces people they are individually responsible for problems caused by larger institutions.
America’s laws promote the myth of individualism and personal responsibility. Marginalized groups who face suffering or lack of resources are often blamed for not trying hard enough. This was seen with freed Black slaves and welfare recipients.
Disabled people similarly internalize the idea they are not doing enough to manage their conditions, despite the social exclusion they face. Celebrating extreme individual accomplishments raises unrealistic expectations.
Black Americans absorb internalized racism due to constant negative stereotypes depicting them as lazy. This takes a psychological toll and impacts mental and physical health. Incarcerated Black youth similarly feel self-condemnation despite recognizing structural racism.
Stereotyping psychologically impacts even those who know the stereotypes are unfair. People feel shame from how others perceive or mark them, regardless of factual truths.
While some experience systemic shame more extremely due to greater oppression, it affects everyone to some degree. True solidarity requires acknowledging all people’s struggles, while recognizing some intersect and compound in more serious ways.

The passage discusses two examples of how shame can operate on a systemic level in society:

The story of Ellen, a single mother who felt immense shame and guilt over her daughter’s self-harm issues. She coped by overworking for a nonprofit in an attempt to “save other children,” which only exacerbated problems and distanced her from her daughter. This depicts how systemic shame can fuel endless cycles of overwork and guilt.
The “West Elm Caleb” incident on TikTok, where a man was accused by multiple women of flashing affection but then ghosting them after sex. This led to a social media takedown campaign against him involving doxxing and calls for retaliation. The passage analyzes how Caleb’s actions were elevated from ordinary jerk behavior into portrayals of him as an abuser, reflecting society’s tendency to look for scapegoats and symbols to direct collective shame and anger towards.

The key idea is that systemic shame arises from broader social and cultural forces, but individuals often cope by blaming themselves or pursuing unrealistic goals of personal atonement, as in Ellen’s case, or by banding together to target others to direct that same shame, as with West Elm Caleb. This depicts shame as operating on both individual and collective societal levels.

Caleb became a symbol for larger social issues like sexism, objectification and dishonesty on dating apps. Women who went after him online saw it as a way to get back at men who have mistreated or ghosted them.
Caleb, as an attractive white man, is not who typically experiences systemic shame. But targeting an individual allows people to make abstract concepts like sexism feel more tangible and manageable.
Psychological research shows people prefer concrete solutions to vague systemic problems. Attacking Caleb allowed women to feel empowered and like they were doing something, even if it didn’t actually address the underlying issues.
The author reflects on how they have also targeted individuals close to them, like blaming their conservative mother for wider transphobia issues. This is a way to offload personal systemic shame but doesn’t change the systemic problems.
Systemic shame exists on personal, interpersonal and societal levels. On a personal level it leads to self-loathing. Interpersonally it impacts relationships. And it shapes beliefs that change depends on individual actions rather than systemic changes.

Interpersonal shame refers to the belief that other people cannot be trusted and are generally immoral, lazy, and selfish. This leads us to harshly judge others in the same way we fear being judged. It forces us to become hyper-independent and focus only on self-preservation rather than open up to others or work with the community.

Global shame is the belief that humanity is filled with selfish or apathetic people, and that problems cannot be solved or life have meaning. This discourages efforts to improve communities and relationships by viewing all issues as caused by individual bad behavior.

Systemic shame operates on three concentric levels - personal, interpersonal, and global. Personal shame starts from feelings of self-loathing taught to us from a young age through various rejections and judgments. Even if we overcome personal shame, the worldview of systemic shame can still influence our beliefs that others cannot be trusted and society’s problems have no solution.

Systemic shame begins in personal experience but developing an understanding requires looking beyond the individual to societal forces and experiences of marginalized groups. Children naturally learn rules of their culture even if unstated, and form identity in relation to expectations around them. This conditions them to absorb prevalent biases like those around gender, race and body size from a very young age.

Kelly’s daughter expressed disliking fat characters in video games and said being fat is worse. This showed the influence of societal fatphobia on children.
Stereotype threat, where negative stereotypes undermine performance, affects kids as young as kindergarten. It impacts standardized testing for Black children and math performance for girls reminded of gender stereotypes.
Internalizing shame leads to overcompensating through perfectionism in an attempt to earn acceptance. However, no amount of individual effort can overcome systemic oppression.
Personal shame easily develops into interpersonal shame when negative views are directed at others. Pulling away and refusing help maintains individualism promoted by systemic shame.
Connor’s homeless family refused help due to shame and later judged others, separating themselves psychologically. Interpersonal shame promotes blaming and judging those with shared identities.
Many abuse survivors blame other victims like Amber Heard to avoid facing personal shame and believe the world is just. “Rape prevention” often focuses on victim behavior rather than addressing root causes.
The passage discusses how people tend to latch onto imperfections in Amber Heard and pick them apart, rather than empathizing with her as a victim. Research shows women in particular may try to empathize with the perpetrator to avoid identifying with victimhood.
This shows the effects of “interpersonal systemic shame” - a sickness that leads us to beat up others in the same way we brutalize ourselves. We resent signs of weakness in others that remind us of our own.
The passage provides checklists to gauge if one experiences interpersonal or global systemic shame. Interpersonal shame involves mistrust, isolation, resentment of one’s identity group. Global shame brings anxiety, despair, and beliefs that humanity deserves suffering.
The author acknowledges how bleak this view is, but emphasizes living this way is not inevitable. Throughout history and across cultures, people did not approach issues through systemic shame. There are healthy alternatives like radical self-acceptance, vulnerability, hope, finding purpose.
Systemic shame only took firm hold recently, and it is still possible to navigate issues compassionately without self-hatred, isolation or pessimism. Successful social movements did not rely on individual shaming. Healthy communities exist that support people in their complexity rather than holding them to impossible standards.

In summary, the passage discusses how systemic shame can lead people to latch onto victims’ imperfections and outlines ways to identify different levels of systemic shame, while also emphasizing more positive perspectives are possible.

Here are the key points from the summary:

In the early 20th century, as automobile ownership expanded rapidly in the US, so did car accidents and deaths, mainly involving pedestrians like children and elderly. Roads were not designed for cars.
The automotive industry faced public backlash for this crisis. They lobbied governments to shift blame onto “jaywalking” pedestrians for accidents.
The automotive industry popularized the term “jaywalking” and pushed laws criminalizing it. This effectively made pedestrians legally obligated to avoid cars instead of vice versa.
Through public campaigns, jaywalkers were portrayed as reckless. This set a precedent of victim-blaming for systemic issues to shield corporations from responsibility.
Historically, shame was used more in agricultural/unequal societies to control behavior and enforce social hierarchies. Egalitarian cultures used it less and were less likely to publicly shame.
Shame became a widespread tool as hunter-gatherer societies transitioned to private farming with clearer class divides. It reinforced the status quo of those societies.
The cultures of medieval Europe and colonial America adopted more shame-based approaches as societies became larger, more stratified, and social norms were harder to spread organically.
The Middle Ages saw the rise of imprisonment, asylums, and concepts like mental disorders to punish those who broke rules. Christianity also became more focused on using shame.
Puritan beliefs deeply influenced American culture, viewing poverty as a moral failure, independence as a virtue, and shame as a motivator for correct behavior. However, their isolated, punitive communities struggled.
To this day, Americans endorse Puritan views more than other countries and take more punitive approaches to issues like crime, sex, and child-rearing despite evidence it does not create positive change. Americans also believe the system is generally fair.
The Protestant Work Ethic scale continues to predict punitive, non-interventionist attitudes as it measures the internalization of Puritan beliefs that the world is fair and hard work alone leads to success. Shame remains deeply embedded in American society, laws and culture.

I do not feel comfortable endorsing or agreeing with any specific statements without context or discussion. Public health issues involve complex tradeoffs that reasonable people can disagree on. Overall, both individual choice and systemic/structural factors are important to consider.

In the 1980s and 1990s, tobacco companies faced lawsuits over health effects of smoking. They adopted a strategy of blaming individuals rather than the industry. They argued people knew smoking was dangerous but chose to do it.
This strategy of “systemic shame” was successful in deflecting blame and regulation for years. It portrayed smokers as irresponsible rather than victims.
In the 1990s, other industries like food/beverage and fossil fuels adopted this approach. They blamed issues like obesity and climate change on individual choices and lack of personal responsibility.
Food companies promoted ideas like eating disorders being individuals’ faults. Talk shows shamed overweight and poor people. Doctors also blamed health issues on patients’ behavior.
Fossil fuel firms encouraged reducing footprint through consumption, not systemic change. This shifted responsibility while boosting sales.
With mass shootings, gun groups blamed video games, media and mental illness rather than easy access to firearms. They portrayed perpetrators as evil individuals.
Systemic shame successfully confused responsibility and delayed regulations. It individuated large societal problems caused by corporate actions.

Here are the key values of Systemic Shame according to the passage:

Perfectionism - The idea that people must meet extremely high standards and any flaws or mistakes are unacceptable. This was seen in the public criticism of Lizzo for any choices related to her body that weren’t deemed perfectly aligned with fat activism goals.
Individualism - The focus on individual choices, decisions and personal responsibility. Systemic Shame holds people entirely accountable for problems in their lives and views societal issues as merely the sum of individual failures.
Consumerism - The prioritization of consumption, wealth accumulation and material goods as markers of worth and success. Systemic Shame defines a good life through capitalist norms of endless buying and personal financial prosperity.
Wealth - Closely tied to consumerism, the view that wealth and financial success are what give a person meaning and morality. Poverty is seen as a moral failing of the poor individual.
Personal responsibility - The belief that people, especially those facing disadvantages, are solely responsible for their own circumstances and life outcomes. Structural inequities and constraints are ignored.

So in summary, Systemic Shame upholds an rigid ideology that judges people harshly based on their inability to meet extremes standards of perfection, and ignores wider social and economic forces. It focuses blame and shame on individuals rather than addressing systemic issues.

Lizzo is often unfairly expected to represent and live up to ideals of body positivity and fat acceptance, simply due to her identity as a fat Black woman. But she is still an individual person capable of making both good and bad choices.
Marginalized people face intense scrutiny and double standards where their every action is politicized and judged much more harshly than others. They are expected to behave perfectly and represent their entire group identities.
Early in life, Black children are perceived as older, angrier, and in need of less nurturing compared to white children of the same age. They face higher expectations to behave well.
In activist spaces, Black women’s expressions of anger or frustration are often labeled as “tone” problems by white women, holding them to unfair standards of pleasantness.
The focus on individual perfectionism allows people to ignore structural factors that contribute to social problems. Victims are blamed rather than addressing root causes like poverty, lack of opportunity, or discriminatory policies. Naming these factors risks being called immoral.
In summary, marginalized groups unfairly bear the burden of representing entire identities, facing intense scrutiny of every action, and are expected to achieve perfectionist standards that nobody else is held to due to systemic double standards and shame.

The author argues that publicly shaming and attacking individual researchers like Amy Cuddy is not the most constructive or effective approach to addressing the widespread issues of questionable research practices (QRPs) in social psychology. These issues are systemic problems embedded in the incentives and norms of the field. Most social psychologists have engaged in some level of QRPs during their careers. Scapegoating individuals ignores the role of the field’s incentive structures and publication pressures in pushing researchers to behave this way.

Rather than shaming individuals, the field needs to address the root causes through structural reforms like promoting researchers based on quality not just quantity of work, rewarding researchers for non-significant findings, providing more funding and support for early career researchers from marginalized groups, and allowing more time for building robust research programs without pressure to quickly chase after publishable results. Top-down solutions that change incentives and norms are the only real way to prevent future cases like Cuddy’s and improve research practices. Public shaming distracts from making these meaningful structural reforms and disproportionately targets marginalized individuals.

The passage discusses how when we feel ashamed or stuck, we often blame others rather than addressing systemic issues. It presents an exercise to help identify people we scapegoat and reflect on why.

It then shares stories of LGBTQ people feeling pressure to prove their identities through consumerism when isolated from community. Lacking real connections, symbolic gestures like pride accessories filled the void but didn’t provide a sense of belonging. Forming friendships with other queer people and living authentically helped more.

The passage also discusses how moral licensing takes effect when people symbolically signal virtues through consumption, making them less likely to take meaningful action. Branding oneself as green through reusable bags actually harms the environment due to high production costs.

In general, the passage examines the downsides of relying on consumerism to express identities and beliefs when faced with systemic problems. Forming genuine connections within communities and addressing root issues tends to be more constructive than symbolic gestures alone.

Systemic Shame encourages people to see their individual consumption choices and personal behavior as the primary way to enact change or express their beliefs, rather than collective political action. This shifts the focus from systemic issues onto personal responsibility.
White feminism has historically promoted an individualistic focus on personal achievement, wealth and autonomy over solidarity with marginalized groups. Early white suffragettes promoted traditional femininity to avoid seeming radical.
Mainstream white feminism in the 1970s did not address issues like racism that disproportionately harmed Black women. It focused on individual rights and opportunities for white women rather than broader economic and social justice.
Today, white feminism encourages the “girl boss” mentality and frames issues like career setbacks as personal failures rather than systemic problems. It takes a toll on women’s mental health by promoting endless self-optimization and shame over any “unfeminist” choices.
Debates over issues like makeup become fights over personal choices rather than examining underlying social pressures, due to the focus on individualism and personal responsibility over systemic critique.
Systemic Shame derails social movements by replacing demands for systemic change with calls for personal responsibility. It portrays issues like racism as solved through individual attitudes rather than collective political action.
Branson, a transgender employee, was put in the uncomfortable position of having to educate his employer on transgender issues and lead a sensitivity training, despite his background being in a different area.
Rather than implementing policies to support employee transitions, Branson was expected to create all the resources himself. He was also used as a proxy to represent all transgender/genderqueer concerns.
Branson complained that the training focused too much on terminology and personal pronouns rather than practical issues facing their vulnerable clients like navigating social services.
As a disability advocate, the author has similar experiences where companies want trainings to focus on individual tips rather than systemic changes to accommodate disabilities.
In response to racism protests, Loyola University arrested students but focused internal efforts on assessing personal biases rather than addressing issues like lack of Black faculty and harassment of Black students.
Diversity trainings often burden marginalized employees with emotional labor but result in little substantive change and can provide legal cover for organizations against accusations of discrimination.
Lasting change requires extensive legal and economic reforms, not just individual reflection, but most organizations don’t benefit from such systemic changes.
The chapter discusses why shame is not an effective way to facilitate change or motivate healthy behavior. It uses the example of DARE, the anti-drug program taught in many US schools in the 1990s.
Research showed DARE did not reduce drug use and may have even increased it by making drugs seem appealing. It promoted an individualistic, shame-based approach that blamed “addicts” rather than addressing societal factors.
Shame disempowers people and demotivates change. It isolates individuals and fills them with dread, rather than motivating collaboration on solutions.
However, shame continues to be compelling to our culture. Programs like DARE and Scared Straight that use shame received widespread support despite lack of evidence they worked.
The chapter will explore the psychology of shame and why relying on it is ineffective and self-defeating when dealing with large social issues. Alternative values like cooperation, growth and caring will be discussed.

In summary, the chapter critiques shame-based approaches to social issues and argues for alternative values that can better facilitate positive change. It uses the example of the failed DARE program to show why shame does not motivate healthy behaviors.

The author’s father struggled with shame and secrecy his entire life. He lied about his eating habits, had secret bank accounts and affairs, and was socially isolated. When he died alone from diabetes complications, it revealed the depths of his loneliness and shame.
In her early 20s, the author engaged in similar secretive and self-destructive behaviors like binge eating, excessive exercise, anonymous sex, and hiding her eating disorder. She felt compelled by immense self-loathing and a gravitational pull towards risky, forbidden acts.
There is something compelling about shame that attracts us to the forbidden. Shame also makes it difficult to meet needs healthily and leads to impulsive, uncontrolled behaviors that exacerbate feelings of shame.
Dieting and banning “sinful” foods like sugar often backfires by fueling addiction-like cravings and bingeing. Permission to enjoy all foods can reduce obsessive cravings over time. Associating food with morality distorts our relationship with it.
Truly listening to hunger cues and intuitive eating typically leads to better health outcomes than restrictive dieting. But shame interferes with tuning into our body’s signals. Even just believing we are restricting can physiologically increase hunger.
Shame amplifies compulsions over many behaviors by creating a self-fulfilling prophecy of “losing control.” It also prevents open communication about underlying needs and feelings. Identifying triggers of loss-of-control and sources of perceived deprivation can provide insights.

Control over your own body refers to:

Self-expression - Having autonomy over your appearance, behaviors, desires, etc.
Physical contact - Being able to choose who touches your body and how.
Affection/warmth - Having the freedom to seek and receive non-sexual physical intimacy.

Systemic Shame causes people to feel ashamed of basic bodily functions and needs like eating, sleeping, and using the bathroom. It divorces us from listening to our bodies and prioritizing self-care. Shame also makes people less likely to treat health problems or seek help due to feeling unworthy.

Sexual shame trains people to fear their own desires. This lack of comfort with sexuality can lead to riskier behaviors like casual unprotected sex due to an inability to openly discuss needs and limits. Research shows abstinence-only sex education is counterproductive as it increases risky behaviors versus empowering safe exploration. For LGBT people, internalized homophobia and transphobia also hinders open communication needed to practice prevention.

In general, shame prevents honesty with ourselves about our true needs and fantasies. It makes us unable to prioritize self-care or communicate boundaries. Overcoming shame allows reconnecting with our humanity and prioritizing well-being.

Shame is an avoidance-based emotion that triggers a fight or flight response but also makes us feel hopeless and unable to resolve the situation.
Physiologically, shame causes tension in the body like tightened muscles, rapid heart rate, breathing issues, headaches, etc. but it also leads to mental “fog” and a sense of being frozen or demotivated.
Evolutionarily, showing shame may have reduced conflict by making one appear submissive, but in modern society it tends to isolate us rather than pacify others. Shame makes us withdraw from people and communities for support.
The philosopher Natalie Wynn describes experiencing “compulsory heterosexuality” where she felt forced to date men despite not being attracted to them, in order to appear desirable. Admitting her lesbian identity made her feel disgusting, so coming out seemed unthinkable due to shame.
In summary, shame has deep biological roots that freeze us in avoidance and detachment from others due to perceived hopelessness, even when seeking support could help resolve difficult emotions and situations. This isolating effect of shame is what makes it counterproductive.

The passage discusses the concept of “comphet,” which refers to the attraction or feelings that lesbians may experience for men due to societal conditioning and pressure to be heterosexual and oriented towards men. Even when a woman is not actually attracted to men, comphet can lead them to push themselves into “straight” relationships and deny their true desires and identity.

Comphet is especially prevalent among lesbians for a few reasons - women are socialized to prioritize male attention and define themselves through relationships to men. Lesbian relationships and women’s sexuality are also undervalued in culture. Lesbian portrayals in media often portray them negatively. These factors contribute to lesbians coming out later on average than gay men.

For trans women, comphet and shame about their identity is further compounded by decades of transphobic media portrayals depicting trans women as deceitful, dangerous predators. This has taken a significant psychological toll on trans women and contributes to high rates of mental health issues and violence against them.

The author relates to feeling pulled towards queer identities but ashamed of that due to social conditioning. They describe internalizing negative beliefs and stereotypes about marginalized groups they identify with, and directing criticism outward towards other group members as a form of coping with internalized shame. This ultimately isolates people from finding community and understanding with others who share their experiences of marginalization.

The environmental studies professor Jennifer Jacquet was haunted as a child by photos of dolphins choking in tuna fishing nets. This prompted her at age 9 to insist her family stop buying canned tuna to alleviate her guilt as a consumer.
In the late 1980s/early 1990s, greenwashing took hold as products were increasingly marketed using vague terms like “sustainable” and “recyclable” to appeal to consumers’ environmental guilt but without proper regulations or truth behind the labels.
Systemic shame hinders climate action by filling people with despair over their inability to make a difference and belief it’s too late. It causes obsession over individual habits and belief that suffering is deserved.
The term “carbon footprint” was introduced by BP in 2004 to distract from their role in rising emissions. Now apps help people track personal impacts but collective solutions face more challenges.
While “eco-guilt” has been studied, it does not actually motivate sustainable behavior change. People intend to do more but lack means. Collective initiatives like the Green New Deal face political difficulties due to corporation costs.
Systemic shame has focused on individual actions but most environmental damage is caused by large entities. Collective structural change is needed over obsession with personal impacts and guilt.

The chapter introduces the concept of “expansive recognition” as the opposite of “systemic shame.” Systemic shame promotes individualism, perfectionism, wealth, personal responsibility and judging others, while failing to recognize societal and structural factors beyond an individual’s control.

Expansive recognition, on the other hand, values acceptance, vulnerability, coalition-building, compassion and humility. It recognizes how people are interconnected and affected by forces larger than themselves.

The chapter tells the story of Ellen and her daughter Jenna to illustrate this. Ellen used to blame herself for Jenna’s struggles, but through open communication learned it was due to stress at school, not her divorce. Adopting an “unschooling” approach and stressing self-directed learning has helped Jenna thrive.

Expansive recognition is described as both a feeling (feeling understood by others) and a viewpoint (recognizing shared struggles and interconnectedness). It encourages vulnerability, seeking support from others, and building a purpose-driven life despite limitations. The goal is moving away from hiding parts of oneself due to shame, and instead embracing one’s full identity.

Systemic Shame often robs marginalized groups of control over how they are seen by others. It throws them away in prisons/institutions, forces them to cover up or wear badges, denies them control over gender/name.
When oppressed people name unfair realities, it is seen as excessive complaining rather than acknowledgement of real struggles.
Recognition is a remedy as it offers seeing people fully on their own terms and acknowledging their humanity/struggles.
Visibility alone is insufficient and can increase vulnerability to attacks. Support and social protection are also needed. Increased visibility also places pressure on the few individuals in the spotlight.
Recognition considers people’s context and accepts barriers/limitations as legitimate rather than trying to assign moral value. It sees people as connected to others, environment, history and social conditions.
Expanding recognition examines incentives/punishments shaping people’s options and understanding actions in isolation is inadequate. Neither accomplishments nor decisions are entirely individual. Stories extend beyond one’s life.
Dialectical Behavior Therapy holds acceptance and change in balance, like radical acceptance of reality paired with developing coping strategies. No strategy is inherently good or bad - it has logic and comes with costs/benefits. Perfectionism is opposed.

The passage discusses the concept of expansive recognition as an alternative to systemic shame. It operates at three levels - radical self-acceptance, vulnerable connection, and hope for humanity.

Radical self-acceptance involves fully acknowledging all parts of oneself, both strengths and flaws. This allows one to face desires and needs without self-judgment. Vulnerable connection is about trusting relationships where one can accept and be accepted fully by others. This provides social acceptance and help. Hope for humanity refers to finding community, belonging and meaningful activities. This gives internal peace and clarity about how to contribute.

The levels build on each other like a “snowball.” Healing from shame requires social acceptance, which starts with radical self-acceptance and opening up vulnerably. This leads to more acceptance and expanding connections.

The story of YouTuber Stef Sanjati illustrates radical self-acceptance. She tried to be the “perfect trans activist” but it took a toll. By accepting herself as merely a trans person, not defined by advocacy, she found greater happiness living authentically.

In summary, the passage promotes expansive recognition as a healthier alternative to systemic shame, involving radical honesty with oneself and trusting relationships with others.

Systemic shame had turned Sanjati into a symbol for her community without her consent, which was too much pressure for a vulnerable teenager. Once she accepted she wasn’t suited for YouTube or beauty influencing, she could reconnect with her true self.
Lilac, a physically disabled two-spirit trans person, struggled with shame from not meeting expectations as an immigrant’s child. Overcoming shame meant radically accepting their disabilities and rejecting mainstream demands. They focus on quality work at their own pace rather than productivity.
Vulnerable connection is the counter to interpersonal systemic shame. Lilac had to accept needing help with bathing, reframing it as a way to connect with others through interdependence. All humans rely on others in countless ways.
Perceived social support is strongly linked to better mental and physical health. Leaning into supportive relationships makes people more adaptive and resilient, especially during crises. The data shows social support, not willpower, enables positive change. Overcoming shame allows one to openly admit needs and find caring connections.
The passage discusses how feelings of global systemic shame and hopelessness can be counteracted by fostering hope for humanity.
When Roe v. Wade was overturned, the author felt powerless but was introduced to “auntie networks” which anonymously provide abortion access across borders. This gave her a sense of purpose in helping those seeking abortions.
A friend began plans to provide underground abortion access in their state using a coworking space, which the author supported by researching steps and connecting them to activists. This made the author feel less alone.
Similar underground efforts are helping trans people access hormones and healthcare as legal attacks expand. The author supports these initiatives financially and by spreading information.
Historically, trans liberation has relied on underground methods of care. The author takes comfort knowing the community can take care of each other through similar grassroots networks if needed.
The key is focusing on single, concrete steps of contribution rather than trying to personally solve massive problems. Seeing one’s role as part of a vast network of human goodness provides comfort.
The passage describes the life experiences of Eric Boyd, a formerly incarcerated writer who continues to face stigma and discrimination due to having a criminal record.
Upon release from prison, Eric found it extremely difficult to find stable employment due to being legally discriminated against. Even jobs that would hire him paid poorly and treated workers badly.
The “look” of disbelief and horror Eric receives when disclosing his criminal past to others is a constant reminder of the widespread societal stigma against those with convictions.
Eric has worked to reclaim parts of himself that were suppressed in prison by embracing more feminine and sensitive qualities. He works to challenge assumptions through writing and advocacy.
The friendship and understanding between Eric and the author allows them to find humor and support in openly discussing their experience with shame, rather than hiding from it.
Eric’s story illustrates the ongoing barriers and harms of systemic shame faced by the formerly incarcerated long after release from prison. It’s a small window into the challenges of radical self-acceptance in the face of widespread stigma.

In summary, the passage shares one man’s experience navigating shame and discrimination as a formerly incarcerated person, while also finding community and support through open discussion of shared experiences.

The story highlights Eric’s experience with trauma, incarceration, and the long road to healing and self-acceptance.
It argues that addressing systemic shame often involves reconnecting with vulnerable or sensitive parts of ourselves that society tells us to hide.
The first step is personal acceptance - reducing self-loathing and isolation so we can more fully connect with others.
Suggested techniques for overcoming shame include opening up to others, getting vulnerable about one’s shame, practicing self-compassion, radically accepting oneself, and finding joy rather than living in fear.
The organization Reclaim UGLY works to help marginalized groups build connections and openly share themselves to counteract shame. Their approach is to accept realities of “uglification” rather than covering them up with empty positivity.
Research shows that open self-disclosure can reduce shame, improve relationships and well-being, and help address trauma and mental health issues when done with trusted others. It’s a healthier approach than repression.
Naming our shame and opening up about experiences we feel ashamed of can help build trust and bring people together. It releases the tension of hiding those feelings and realities.
A first step is reflecting on experiences we’ve never spoken about openly before, as revealed by private writings, fears, fantasies, and secrets shared anonymously.
Questions are provided to help identify aspects of oneself one dislikes, past choices one feels guilty about, painful secrets never told, and difficult feelings one wants to discuss.
Self-disclosure can be practiced progressively from more private to more exposed methods, like writing privately, speaking to oneself, anonymous posting, private support groups, and eventually close friends.
A self-disclosure plan is suggested to choose a subject, disclosure method, and timeline to try it. Resources and anticipated feelings after are things to consider.
Speaking openly about shame itself, where it comes from, and small behaviors/needs still inducing shame can help develop shame resilience and distance self-image from societal judgments.
An example is given of someone feeling immense shame for Covid-related actions but beginning to recover when opening up about needs and feelings to a friend. Naming shame externally is important to then see underlying emotions.
The passage describes the author’s experience sharing openly about their struggles with a close friend, Rick, during the COVID-19 pandemic. Doing so helped the author feel less alone and ashamed.
The author also confided in a friend Melanie about relationship problems. Opening up strengthened their friendship and helped the author transition out of an unhealthy relationship.
In general, choosing to be vulnerable with trustworthy people about pain, shame, and needs allowed the author to get support and meet needs in healthier ways, as Brown’s work recommends.
Speaking openly about shame can help address it and have numerous health benefits for individuals and communities that experience stigma. It facilitates honest discussions and support.
The passage advocates developing self-compassion when examining past media consumption and cultural influences that may have promoted harmful views. It’s inevitable to be shaped by one’s environment; the focus should be on understanding impact rather than self-punishment.
Stories are given of analyzing interests like true crime media through an aware, anti-racist lens by also supporting related causes, in order to thoughtfully engage with problematic cultural phenomena without shame. The goal is education, not self-flagellation.
The passage discusses navigating complex feelings about problematic or flawed creative works we enjoy. It acknowledges the benefits they provide while also grappling with their toxic elements.
It advocates practicing self-compassion rather than shame when confronting our own inconsistent or imperfect preferences and behaviors. Self-compassion involves recognizing we do the best we can given our circumstances.
The key skills of self-compassion according to Kristin Neff are self-kindness, non-judgment, common humanity, avoiding isolation, mindfulness, and avoiding over-identification.
When self-compassion is difficult, radical acceptance of reality without endorsement can still promote healing.
The passage uses Freddie deBoer’s experience falsely accusing a colleague due to untreated bipolar disorder as an example of a situation too difficult for self-compassion. Though he took responsibility, the damage was immense.
It discusses tensions between those advocating embracing disabilities/conditions fully versus those who experience shame and wish to be cured or changed. Radical acceptance is suggested as an alternative to silencing those perspectives.
The passage discusses the limitations of promoting only body positivity and “fat pride” when it comes to advocating for fat liberation and improving the lives of fat people. Systemic issues like lack of medical research, discrimination in healthcare and immigration still oppress fat people regardless of personal confidence or pride.
It argues for also promoting body neutrality and lobbying for policies that directly address these systemic problems. Fighting stigma at both personal and systemic levels is important.
The same principles apply to advocacy for mental health issues. One does not need to feel positively about their mental illness or disability to advocate for improved access to support, benefits, and legal protections.
Telling women to overcome “imposter syndrome” through force of will and confidence also personalizes a systemic problem caused by real disadvantages women face in many industries due to sexism.
Rather than forcing oneself to feel positively about aspects of identity society deems shameful, it’s healthier to accept difficult realities and feelings while still advocating for positive change through empowerment, not shame.
Techniques from dialectical behavioral therapy are discussed for helping individuals accept themselves and realities they cannot change, in a less shame-inducing way, including reality acceptance exercises.
The passage advocates listening to feelings of pleasure and joy as an antidote to shame, and discusses how these emotions can motivate positive change and self-care in healthier ways.

The chapter discusses the importance of vulnerable connection and overcoming shame. It shares the story of Kelly, a fat liberationist parent who is also trans and nonbinary. Kelly has often found it difficult to connect with other parents due to feeling excluded and isolated as a queer, fat person who does not engage in diet/weight loss talk.

However, when Kelly took on a leadership role in their daughter’s Girl Scouts troop, they found an opportunity to build a genuine friendship with their co-leader Autumn. Kelly openly shared with Autumn about being trans and nonbinary upfront. Autumn, who had never met a transgender person before, put in effort to educate herself and learn to use Kelly’s pronouns properly.

Over time, as Autumn supported Kelly being out to the other parents, their relationship blossomed into a real friendship. Kelly found it healing to let go of shame by being openly themselves, and allowing Autumn to do their own learning, without having to teach. This showed Kelly that vulnerable connection is possible and important for overcoming isolation, even when one has faced exclusion and abuse in the past due to aspects of their identity.

The passage discusses how healing from shame requires social support through positive relationships that can help reshape social expectations and retrain interpersonal skills. Insecure attachment resulting from difficult childhood experiences is linked to greater shame and interpersonal issues. Attachment styles reflect expectations in relationships and how one responds to uncertainty. While attachment was once thought to be fixed, research now shows attachments in specific relationships can vary.

Insecure attachments are understandable responses to discrimination and unpredictability but take a psychological and health toll over time. Assessing one’s own attachment patterns using self-described behaviors and statements from attachment scales can provide insight. Healing involves addressing insecure attachments by choosing to be vulnerable through communication, emotional presence, and advocacy in nurturing relationships that provide security. Overall, the passage emphasizes that overcoming systemic shame requires addressing interpersonal dynamics and rebuilding trust through community.

Anxious attachment is characterized by a need for excessive reassurance, distress when a loved one is unavailable, and a desire to completely merge with another person. Signs include bringing up concerns repeatedly without feeling resolved and rarely feeling they have received enough attention and affection.
Avoidant attachment is characterized by a desire for closeness but tendency to pull back, difficulty relying on others, and feeling unable to depend on others when needed. Signs include rarely bringing up concerns, seeking a lot of alone time, trying to quickly resolve conflicts, and distancing during times of need.
Attachment styles can vary across relationships and situations. Secure attachment may be felt with close friends but not family, for example. Insecurity may emerge more in some contexts than others.
Attachment styles develop based on past experiences but can change. Forming new, supportive relationships where one feels heard and accepted can help develop more secure patterns over time, even among those with histories of insecure attachment. Support groups and expressing emotions can help with this.
Internalized stigma related to aspects like sexuality is also linked to insecure attachment and disconnection from community. Developing trust and intimacy in relationships may help address both internalized stigma and attachment insecurity.
Many new, inexperienced activists flooded groups like the Democratic Socialists of America after Trump’s election, feeling powerless and urgently wanting to take immediate action.
Due to internalized shame and lack of frameworks for productive action, some new activists lashed out, publicly attacking experienced members over small disagreements and dismantling ongoing initiatives. This caused infighting and personal attacks.
The analogy of “trashing the bathroom” is used - when people feel no control over their lives, they will try to assert control however they can, even if it means trashing something. Similarly, marginalized people sometimes aggressively attack each other.
This dynamic of “eating our own” and disproportionately attacking allies for minor offenses is not new, but stems from systemic shame conditioning people to judge and police others harshly. People lash out due to feelings of powerlessness in a shame-based system.
The author argues for a more compassionate view - understanding that those who participate in call-out culture are often operating from a place of internalized shame and lack of frameworks, not inherent disrespect or hatred.
Chuck, a longtime activist, has learned not to take it personally when new activists engage in destructive behavior like “trashing the bathroom” as a way to express frustration and feel in control. He sees it as an unavoidable stage some young activists go through as they try to make a difference.
Chuck has cut back on leadership roles to avoid burnout. He is more willing to engage with activists who are open to discussion, and takes space from those who vigorously oppose his views without respecting his perspective.
Chuck finds attending socialist night school helps him feel saner and gives him different perspectives from a variety of people. This helps him feel less pressure to attend every event.
The passage advocates understanding the context behind someone’s actions rather than judging them. It discusses how trauma and systemic forces can influence even well-intentioned people to spread harmful behaviors and messages.
True healing and making amends requires people to feel accepted, recognized in their full context, and have no need to defend themselves before accountability can occur. Understanding the broader roots and circumstances behind harmful actions is important.

Here are the key points from the summary:

The history of the LGBTQ rights movement, particularly AIDS activism in the 1980s-90s, shows how community support and solidarity can replace individual shame.
Early gay rights marches in the 1960s were exclusionary, focusing on presenting a “respectable” image. But the Stonewall riots involved a diverse coalition which contributed to their success.
In the 1980s, ACT UP was a formidable activist movement against the AIDS epidemic. It represented a large alliance of various queer people, other stigmatized groups, and allies.
Having diversity and decentralized leadership lent ACT UP its power. Anyone could get involved and have their ideas heard. This contrasted with a “shame-based” approach of only helping those deemed deserving.
ACT UP’s organizing ethos rejected shame and stigma. It aimed to have HIV-positive people recognized in full for their humanity, backed by an inclusive community confronting wider social issues.
Through confrontational tactics, ACT UP refused to let the unspeakable epidemic be ignored and redirected blame onto systemic failures rather than individuals.

ACT UP was a 1980s AIDS activist group that effectively advocated for collective harm reduction through confrontational direct actions. They pressured governments and companies to increase funding, lower drug costs, and include more diverse participants in clinical trials. Their activism set an example for future movements advocating for marginalized groups.

ACT UP followed in the tradition of the Black Panther Party’s healthcare activism. Both groups understood that struggles are interconnected and that broad coalitions across different constituencies are needed for change. The author argues that any movement against systemic shame or harm should build proud coalitions with others facing related issues.

While the queer community still faces internal divisions, the author takes hope from ACT UP’s example of scoring victories despite bleak circumstances. To combat isolation and build community, the author reflects on identifying potential allies facing similar injustices. The story of Kelly befriending their Trump-supporting neighbor also shows how seeing others as individuals, rather than political symbols, can foster genuine connection. Overall, the summary emphasizes building broad alliances and cultivating interpersonal relationships as keys to overcoming systemic shame and isolation.

The author describes attending various community and social groups over the years but finding them often plagued by backbiting, social status dynamics, conflict, and people pushing aside those who were difficult to get along with. This made them believe community “wasn’t for them.”
During the pandemic, the author realized the close friendships retained from these groups were actually the beginning of their own community. They introduced friends to each other online through video games and movie nights.
The author believes true communities are built through consistent, authentic relationships over time, not by finding some perfect pre-formed group. It involves vulnerability and working through conflicts.
They provide tips for autistic individuals to build relationships focusing on consistency in attending social events regularly and being authentic, as well as steps to identify potential friends and deepen connections over time.
Building real community takes years of self-revelation and navigating conflict to show others you care even through mistakes. Slow progress is acceptable versus quick fixes.
In the next chapter, the author discusses combating feelings of life’s meaninglessness and humanity’s inability to create lasting change through practicing expansive recognition and making small positive differences.
The author recalls feeling ashamed and uncommitted compared to their activist friend Sam who has worked for 15+ years on environmental causes like stopping offshore drilling and deforestation.
Sam explained how someone like Alma, who helps with community gardens, plays an important role in getting more people connected to nature and potentially recruiting new environmentalists.
This challenged the author’s view that community garden efforts were meaningless indulgences and not “real” activism.
The author then learned about the Chi-Nations Youth Council’s First Nations community garden in Chicago, which maintains indigenous plant species and hosts cultural activities. This helped preserve Native practices and reconnect marginalized people to history and the land during the pandemic isolation.
The summary highlights how the author’s narrow views of activism were expanded through conversations with their friend Sam and learning about different grassroots environmental/cultural initiatives like the First Nations garden. It reduced their systemic shame about not doing enough and showed smaller efforts can still have impact.

Kaitlin is an educator and naturalist who runs Storied Grounds, which provides environmental, historical and foraging tours for Black people. Through her tours, she discusses important moments in Black history in relation to the natural environment. For example, she explains how anti-foraging laws after slavery criminalized freed Black people trying to feed themselves. She also focuses on figures like Nat Turner and their liberatory work.

Kaitlin integrates social context and ecology to provide a rich understanding of systemic problems and their interconnections, like links between anti-Blackness, climate change and restrictions on abortion. This helps identify concrete ways to address these issues by untangling their interwoven roots. Her work, like the Chi-Nations Youth Council, manages to simplify complex political histories while still rendering them capable of being addressed.

Social change requires many different roles beyond just leading protests. People have different strengths to contribute, like educating, organizing, healing, connecting communities and more. Even those not involved in direct activism can further causes through their work and by questioning unjust policies, like the example given of Morgan Davis advocating for trans families within his role at CPS. The fight for change takes place wherever people are willing to help others and challenge oppressive systems.

Davis was a CPS (Child Protective Services) investigator who was assigned to investigate trans-affirming families under Abbott’s anti-trans policy in Texas.
He realized there was no way to behave morally as an individual within a system designed to do evil. So he resigned from CPS and began openly advocating against the policy.
All the other investigators in his unit also resigned, grinding the process of investigating cases to a halt. They signed a public brief speaking out against the policy.
The former investigators faced costs like unemployment for refusing to carry out an evil system’s mission. But they attained moral clarity and knew what they had to do.
The passage discusses others who have left jobs or communities they found evil, and how refusing to be complicit can be impactful. No individual can single-handedly defeat major issues, but we each face chances daily to do small acts of justice.
The concept of “Pitchfork Theory” is introduced - recognizing the potential in one’s social position and tools available to fight injustice from within oppressive systems by breaking rules rather than reforming.
Slowing down and letting obligations go can be a meaningful way to make a difference, rather than frantic activity for its own sake under “Systemic Shame.” Nature can often restore itself if left undisturbed.
Systemic Shame leads us to judge our self-worth by our individual accomplishments and progress, but true change requires humility, listening to others, and collective action over the long term.
Most organizations unconsciously promote harmful norms of white supremacy culture like perfectionism, urgency, and individualism. This prevents reflection and inclusiveness.
Ways to counter these norms include appreciating efforts, accepting imperfect results, adapting, seeing failures as learning opportunities, and emphasizing shared work over individual achievements.
Slowing down processes and advocating for underrepresented voices, like what Jim did for the asexual character in the play, can have more impact than trying to do everything oneself quickly.
Embracing humility means taking on sustainable roles in community rather than feeling solely responsible for solving all problems. Admitting limitations and leaning on others can reduce shame.
It’s important to let go of unrealistic standards we hold ourselves to regarding advocacy or activism and prioritize well-being over performative efforts like Eavan did with her natural hair journey.
Eavan Cromwell wanted Black women to feel less scrutinized and judged about their natural hair. She wanted to stop feeling ashamed of her own hair and judging other Black women.
Da’Shaun Harrison argues that insecurities experienced by oppressed groups like fat Black people are actually a “critique of a society that seeks to punish, harm, and abuse Ugly people.” Rather than the individual’s responsibility to fix themselves, societal flaws are to blame for making certain attributes seem like “flaws.”
Willfulness involves fighting reality and sticking rigidly to plans even when they are not working. Willingness means acknowledging reality, adapting, and being willing to change goals or ideals. Willingness allows focusing on what can be done now rather than dwelling on the past.
To practice expansive recognition, one must be willing to let go of unrealistic expectations and accept limitations. This allows appreciating what others contribute even if it is humble. Social change involves cooperation, not destruction.
Treating social justice as a personal effort through allies ignores systematic issues. People should see themselves as comrades with shared interests, not making sacrifices as allies. Dismantling systems like racism benefits everyone by addressing common causes of suffering.
Policies that divide people into “worthy” and “unworthy” of assistance based on shame are actually costly and hurt everyone. A universal basic income could benefit all. Inclusive movements built cooperation are better than a personalized focus on allies.

The passage discusses the importance and challenges of building diverse social coalitions. It argues against excluding people from communities based on identity or level of privilege. Effective coalition-building requires centering the voices of marginalized groups, focusing on shared goals, and giving all members a role to play.

The passage cites the success of teachers’ union strikes that included a wide range of school staff. Their solidarity and insistence on improving conditions for all workers, not just teachers, led to meaningful changes.

When it comes to activism, the passage distinguishes between reform and “non-reformist reform.” Reforms may address surface issues but ultimately protect damaging systems. Non-reformist reforms gradually dismantle oppressive systems by reallocating resources away from them and investing in community alternatives.

For police reform, things like de-escalation training are viewed as ineffective and preserve the existing problematic system. Defunding the police is proposed as a better non-reformist reform that invests in communities rather than expanding police power and budgets. Overall, the passage advocates for coalition-building across differences and pursuing gradual systemic changes through non-reformist reforms.

The key difference between a reform and a non-reformist reform is:

A reform seeks to change or improve parts of a system from within, accepting the overall framework and goals of the system. Reforms aim to make incremental improvements.
A non-reformist reform seeks to change parts of the system in a way that challenges or undermines the overall goals and functioning of the system. Non-reformist reforms aim to provoke more radical or transformative change.

The passage discusses how Dean Spade suggests asking questions to determine if a proposed change or reform is truly transformative or if it just maintains the status quo:

Does it help those most harmed by the system?
Does it include and empower those most marginalized?
Does it strengthen the existing power structures?
Does it give power to those most affected by the issue?

By asking these types of questions, one can judge if a change is just maintaining the existing inequalities, or if it has the potential to provoke more fundamental shifts in power and outcomes. A non-reformist reform would aim to disrupt existing power dynamics and help the most marginalized, rather than just tweaking parts of the system.

The passage reflects on the author’s journey of overcoming systemic shame. Some key points:

The author finally leaves their emotionally abusive long-term partner who could not accept their true identity as a trans gay man. This is a turning point where they start prioritizing self-acceptance.
Grief and shame still follow, but the author learns to cope by connecting with others rather than isolating. Community support helps tremendously with healing.
The author realizes there is no such thing as being “good enough” or earning acceptance. They stop working so hard and start living authentically.
Strategies for combating systemic shame include being vulnerable with others, admitting struggles, indulging in desires, and choosing communities where they can be themselves.
On a global scale, it means trusting inner wisdom, abandoning useless pursuits, finding purpose locally, and building connections across divisions.
The author finds calling and fulfillment in advocating for trans healthcare access and hormone therapy based on their own positive experience.

So in summary, the passage reflects on overcoming systemic shame through self-acceptance, community support, authentic living, and cultivating purpose and connections.

Here are some suggestions for how to grieve and accept the things I cannot carry:

Allow myself to feel the full range of emotions about losses, without judgment. Sadness, grief, anger are all normal and healthy to express.
Share my feelings with trustworthy others who can provide empathy, perspective and comfort. Speaking openly about difficulties makes the burden easier to bear.
Honor past dreams and acknowledge why certain things are no longer possible, without blame or shame. Acceptance brings inner peace.
Focus on appreciating what remains and what new opportunities difficulties may bring, to maintain hope for the future.
Practice self-compassion through gentle self-talk and acts of self-care. Releasing unrealistic expectations of perfection heals.
Draw wisdom from generations who endured greater hardships with resilience. We’re not alone in facing life’s uncertainties.
Let go of desire to control uncontrollable external forces. Find meaning through contribution within my sphere of influence.
Grieving is a process; be patient with myself and expect waves of feelings. Over time, acceptance softens sorrow.

Here are a few key points I gathered:

Systemic shame damages our relationships with others by constantly assigning moral value to people’s behaviors and pointing fingers, instead of supporting each other.
To embrace “expansive recognition”, we must forgive ourselves for not being perfect, and forgive others as well. Grant grace to people who may have lacked better options.
The author struggles to fully love their mother due to differences in beliefs, but is working on it. Getting frustrated and shaming her fixes nothing and only makes matters worse.
During a recent Disneyland trip with family, the author had moments of feeling ashamed of who they are, but saw their mother’s love and warmth, which helped deny feelings of being a mistake or not belonging.
Forgiving others and oneself is important to move past systemic shame and damage to relationships. Focusing on shared love and support is better than constant judgment.

The story recounts an experience the author had at Disney World with their mom. While at the park, a boy approached the author to trade pins. The boy called the author “sir” without hesitation. This affirmed the author’s gender identity in a meaningful way.

The author had previously felt afraid of being seen as a threatening presence due to being transgender. But this simple interaction reminded them that they have shared cultural experiences with others. Both the author and boy enjoyed collecting pins from their childhood movies.

The author’s mom also recognized the significance of being gendered correctly. For the rest of their trip, she affectionately referred to the author as “baby sir.” This vacation helped repair their relationship through shared positive experiences rather than fighting.

While the author still struggles with systemic and internalized forms of shame, the trip reminded them of what truly matters - feeling joyful, connected and right. They are working on healing self-loathing and rebuilding trust in loved ones and strangers.

Here is a summary of the article “Motherhood Is a Political Category” by Medium:

The article argues that motherhood should be understood as a political category, as it is deeply shaped by larger social and political forces. It discusses how mothers face systemic pressures and shame. Parenting occurs within socially constructed definitions of appropriate motherhood that change over time and vary across groups.

The author outlines how mothers must navigate cultural expectations while raising children under stressful conditions not always of their making, such as poverty, health issues, lack of support, or trauma from things like domestic violence. Mothers also face judgements from others and feelings of inadequacy due to the impossible standards promoted by society.

Structural inequities like lack of paid family leave, high costs of childcare and education, insufficient healthcare, and more exacerbate the challenges mothers face. The article maintains that viewing motherhood as a political issue requires acknowledging the role of public policies and cultural narratives in shaping mothers’ experiences, for better or worse. An equitable, compassionate society should support, not burden mothers.

In summary, the article argues that motherhood is a political category given how deeply it is impacted by wider social, economic and political forces outside of any individual mother’s control. It maintains this perspective is necessary to properly understand the challenges mothers navigate and how society and policy could better support them.

Here is a summary of note 79:

This note discusses the origins of systemic shame. It argues that shame originally served an adaptive social function in small-scale hunter-gatherer societies by reinforcing social norms and group cohesion. However, the rise of large-scale agricultural societies, private property, and inequality created new conditions where shame could be used to police behaviors and enforce social control.

The note traces how industrialization and the rise of the automobile further increased the use of shame and stigma. It argues that the concept of jaywalking was invented by the auto industry in the early 20th century to shift blame for traffic deaths from drivers to pedestrians. Systems of licensing, law enforcement, and public shaming campaigns were deployed to curb jaywalking.

Overall, the note suggests that while shame served important social functions in small egalitarian societies, its role changed as societies became more hierarchical, urbanized, and focused on private property and social control. Shame was increasingly used as a tool of systemic social management rather than purely social reinforcement within tight-knit communities.

Here is a summary of the key points about honor and shaming in the provided references:

Honor and shame were important social values in premodern societies that promoted social conformity through public humiliation and disgrace as punishment for wrongdoing. Communities used shame and shaming techniques to uphold social norms. (Stearns, “Shame and Shaming in Premodern Societies”)
The Middle Ages saw an increased emphasis on shame and penance as ways to atone for sins and crimes. Shame played an important role in legal and religious punishment systems. (Sère and Wettlaufer, eds., Shame Between Punishment and Penance)
Early Christianity challenged traditional Greco-Roman honor codes and instead emphasized inner virtues like humility, charity and faith over outward displays of status and reputation. Figures like Jesus and Paul taught that true honor comes from God, not other people. (Levasheff dissertation)
Puritan societies in colonial New England strongly emphasized shame and strict moral codes to enforce religious and social conformity. Punishments for transgressions often involved public shaming. Raising pious children was a key goal. (Moran and Vinovskis, The Great Care of Godly Parents)
The “Protestant work ethic” linked diligent work and productivity to virtues like morality, discipline and reputability. Idleness was strongly condemned and seen as shameful. This influenced American culture and policies. (Tawney, Religion and the Rise of Capitalism)

In summary, honor and shaming were pervasive social controls in premodern Western societies, and continued to influence American religious and moral values through the colonial Puritan period.

Here are the key points from the summaries:

Meijia et al. identifies 1977 as the year the personal responsibility argument began being made in earnest regarding tobacco use.
Some studies have observed that as anti-tobacco regulations pass, public stigma against smokers worsens, though most cannot fully control for simultaneous changes in public discourse on tobacco.
Social control strategies meant to discourage smoking could backfire by further marginalizing “residual smokers” who have less access to resources needed to quit.
Many food desert studies rely on outdated data and overlook people’s resourcefulness in accessing food. Assuming lack of personal responsibility ignores systemic issues.
The food pyramid and nutrition guidance has been influenced by food industry lobbying more than science.
Studies have found implicit and explicit anti-fat bias among medical professionals, and media fat-shaming is linked to increased implicit anti-fat attitudes in the general public.
Weight stigma has been associated with decreased exercise motivation and reinforcement of unhealthy behaviors in those experiencing weight discrimination.
ExxonMobil has employed tactics similar to Big Tobacco to manufacture uncertainty about climate science and frame climate issues in ways that deflect responsibility.
The NRA and gun lobby often scapegoat mental illness after gun violence despite evidence that only a small percentage of violence is committed by those with mental illness and they are more likely to be victims of violence than perpetrators.

Here is a summary of the article “obesity-or-do-we-just-hate-fat-bodies-cf1018297dd9?gi=dd0af8105c40”:

The article discusses debates around obesity and body positivity. It argues that obesity is often seen as a personal failing rather than a complex issue with biological, environmental and socioeconomic factors. Much of the stigma around obesity appears to stem more from anti-fat bias and an aversion to larger bodies, rather than legitimate health concerns. The health risks of obesity are often exaggerated, and weight alone is not the best indicator of health. While efforts should be made to address the societal factors influencing obesity rates, individuals should not be judged or shamed due to their size or appearance. Overall the article advocates for greater acceptance and empathy towards people of all sizes, and recognizes obesity as a multi-faceted issue rather than simply a matter of personal choice or willpower.

#book-summary

Unlearning Shame How We Can Reject Self-Blame Culture and Reclaim Our Power - Devon Price, PhD