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?
by Purplefootprint
19 Comments
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
>in case it matters
It doesn’t.
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.
I didn’t get very far into it because it sounded like a female Jordan Peterson.
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! 😆)
These problems are so typical of second-wave feminist stuff.
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?
All people are equal, but women face structural sexism. So if women want to believe their ovaries are magic. Have at it.
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.
Hey, reading this now and really having trouble with it. For all the reasons you stated and on top of that it’s repetitive and sort of boring. Did you finish? I’m one of those people who struggle putting a book down once I’ve started but this is getting crazy.
Yeah you lost me at all the trans stuff…. Men and women are very different. And there is definitely a sort of female hate that emanates from the world. Where that originates from isn’t entirely easy to pinpoint, but I think what porn is today & culture in general trying to domesticate and control women has a lot to do with anti-female energy I sense.
I think it’s important to keep in mind when reading this book that she is talking about archetypes, all of which have varying degrees of masculinity and femininity. And often, the “male”/masculine and “female”/feminine characters in the stories she retells are meant to represent aspects of EACH PERSON’s own psyche. Regardless of the gender of that person. And how we can call on these various aspects of ourselves to aid us in different moments and situations. There is also the context that the book was published in 1992 AND the author was pregnant herself when writing it, so that is sure to color some of the language she uses. And the “MOTHER” and “FATHER” archetypes are powerful entities that affect all of us, regardless of our own parental status.
BUT I was also very curious to know what the author’s views on gender identity were and how trans folks can relate to the Wild Woman archetype, and in my searching I found this transcript of an interview between her and Emma Watson on goodreads.
(https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/18797188-answers-from-dr-clarissa-pinkola-est-s-part-two)
Jungian Analysis is not for everyone, sadly. I feel this discussion got toxic VERY quick. The wild woman archetype is so misunderstood because of how detached society is from the inner world. We try to experience the wild woman intellectually when we must use feeling. Our instinct. Dr. Pinkola creates an energy throughout the book that reflects the wild woman archetype. Wild, free, fierce, grounded, courageous. Also, why are some of you so defensive and aggressive about her word choice lmao so weird
Just started reading it because I see excerpts circle around every now and again, I could not get through any of the essays. Her tone starts off with this superiority complex that makes me doubt her relationship to spirituality. Sorry you had to read that for a whole book club conversation