Introductions to feminism

[palotin]

A recent conversation has led me to the conclusion that I need to familiarize myself with the feminist canon. My knowledge of feminist politics has come from conversations, journalism and practice. What books would you recommend to start with?

[Broletariat]

Try reading any of Emma Goldman's works that sound like they'd be feminist.

Here's where you could find them.

http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/goldman/GoldmanCW.html

[Lucretia]

A recent conversation has led me to the conclusion that I need to familiarize myself with the feminist canon. My knowledge of feminist politics has come from conversations, journalism and practice. What books would you recommend to start with?

A decent intro to the feminist canon would be to read Rosemarie Tong's "Feminist Thought" (http://www.amazon.com/Feminist-Thought-More-Comprehensive-Introduction/dp/0813343755/), Alison Jaggar's "Feminist Politics and Human Nature" (http://www.amazon.com/Feminist-Politics-Nature-Philosophy-Society/dp/0847672549/), then to read the major primary texts associated with the major feminist theorists covered by these authors.

[Amphictyonis]

http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/ethics/de-beauvoir/2nd-sex/index.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Material_feminism

[Lucretia]

http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/ethics/de-beauvoir/2nd-sex/index.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Material_feminism

Somebody asks for a broad intro to get a feel for feminist theory and you provide them links to (a) a wikipedia page and (b) an older, flawed translation to an unbelievably dense primary text on existentialist feminism.

Give the guy a break and at least let him read about what existentialist feminism is (from a reliable, trained, non-wikipedia source) before saddling him with Beauvoir!

[TC]

Try reading any of Emma Goldman's works that sound like they'd be feminist.


Not to pick on you, but that's a ridiculous suggestion to someone who wants to read the feminist canon. You've just named some female political leader you like - but not one who established feminism - and not one that is even indisputably a feminist at all.

The foundational texts for feminism as such (as opposed to the suffragette movement, and other women's rights movements, that existed prior to feminsim)

Remember okay, "feminism" is not the same as "in favor of women's rights" it is not just a political agenda but an analytic stance on patriarchy.

De Beauvoir's The Second Sex and Friedan's The Feminine Mystique, are without a doubt the foundational texts for feminism as feminism - feminism as a modern theoretical movement. Prior to it, one might argue that there was no "feminism" as such, rather there were women like the suffragettes who demanded that liberalism be applied universally to women as well as to men.

[sologdin]

some representatives of the traditional tripartite breakdown of feminism:

first wave

mary wollstonecraft's declaration of the rights of women
j. stuart mill's the subjection of women
fuller's women in the 19th century
the suffragettes' seneca falls declaration of sentiments

second wave

de beauvoir and friedan, as mentioned, above
kate millet's sexual politics
the second wave (linda nicholson, ed.) is a reader that might serve as a good introduction.

third wave

baumgardner & richards' manifesta
judith butler's gender trouble and bodies that matter (neither is introductory)

and, no list is complete without:

red/socialist feminism

materialist feminism (hennessey & ingraham, eds) - a reader
the south atlantic quarterly had an issue with the same title (moi & radway, eds.)
theresa ebert's ludic feminism and after

[Amphictyonis]

Somebody asks for a broad intro to get a feel for feminist theory and you provide them links to (a) a wikipedia page and (b) an older, flawed translation to an unbelievably dense primary text on existentialist feminism.

Give the guy a break and at least let him read about what existentialist feminism is (from a reliable, trained, non-wikipedia source) before saddling him with Beauvoir!

Pretty much fuck you. Liberal feminism is reactionary. I pointed our friend in the right direction :) She wasn't just some 'existentialist' feminist she was a Marxist first and foremost and the foundation of the modern materialist feminist movement.

I'll also direct our friend to read this material:

http://www.cddc.vt.edu/feminism/mar.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Origin_of_the_Family,_Private_Property,_and_th e_State

[William Howe]

Read up on Rosa Luxemburg. She's a prominent communist feminist.

[TC]

Read up on Rosa Luxemburg. She's a prominent communist feminist.

But she's not. She's a prominent communist woman. Her original contributions to feminist theory are piddling though, and much less significant than her contributions to socialist theory.

Equating all leftist women with feminists and prominence as a feminist with prominence as a leftist woman is a misunderstanding of feminism.

[TC]

One really revolutionary book written by a socialist, marxist feminist, was Shulamith Firestone's Dialectic of Sex - it will blow your mind even today.

[¿Que?]

Might also want to check out Catherine McKinnon and Andrea Dworkin. I don't necessarily like what little I've read, but they do represent an important movement within feminism viz. the anti-pornography movement that blew up in the 80's.

[syndicat]

i would recommend "Feminist Theory: From Margin to Center" by bell hooks, and the anthology "Women & Revolution"

[Amphictyonis]

Hey TC:

"telling someone "pretty much fuck you" without provocation is uncool"

Lucretia's post was pretty much condescending. It's not like 'fuck you' is some dastardly insult. The OP asked for feminist material and I gave the OP pretty much the foundation work of modern feminism and I was criticized for it. I'll pretty much say fuck you to the guy again so you may as well neg rep me some more :) I understand it's the learning section and I'm trying to be helpful. Anyone who criticizes 'The Second Sex' as some outdated irrelevant feminist text is ignorant and shouldn't be criticizing me, when people wrongly criticize me it usually warrants a fuck you every so often. Do aggressive women threaten you? Are you neg repping everyone who says fuck you? You'll be quite busy ;)

A lot of people get the wrong idea when looking into feminism, liberal/radical etc. Again, pointing a person in the direction of Marxist feminism shouldn't be criticized. Fuck that. Hey OP, check out some works buy Simone Weil.

[Lucretia]

Pretty much fuck you. Liberal feminism is reactionary. I pointed our friend in the right direction :)

Where have I even mentioned liberal feminism in any of my posts? I directed the reader to two general surveys that cover the major types of feminism, including liberal feminism. I happen to believe that people should be exposed to ideas they disagree with, if for not other reason then because it allows them to better understand the later radical critiques of those ideas. It's unfortunate that you don't seem to trust people to make up their minds for themselves.


She wasn't just some 'existentialist' feminist she was a Marxist first and foremost and the foundation of the modern materialist feminist movement.And? That doesn't alter my points that she was (a) an existentialist feminist, whose work you cited is (b) very dense and (c) rendered poorly in translation in the link you provided.


I'll also direct our friend to read this material:

http://www.cddc.vt.edu/feminism/mar.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Origin_of_the_Family,_Private_Property,_and_th e_StateThese are all things this person should read after getting the broad overview. What you are doing is, in response to somebody asking for an intro to debates about political economy in the 19th century, telling that person to read Capital Volume 3 in its entirety.

[Lucretia]

Anyone who criticizes 'The Second Sex' as some outdated irrelevant feminist text is ignorant and shouldn't be criticizing me.

To be honest, I was not intending to be condescending. However, in light of what you've written in the meantime, I must say that it's difficult not to be condescending to somebody who cannot distinguish between criticism of a text, and criticism of recommending that text as an introduction . I criticized your recommending The Second Sex as an introductory text for somebody trying to get a solid grasp of what feminism, broadly speaking, is all about because I think it is a very difficult text to understand without a lot of prior knowledge. I think it's a great work, especially when the French is translated into English appropriately. My criticism was not personal.

[TC]

Lucretia's post was pretty much condescending. It's not like 'fuck you' is some dastardly insult. The OP asked for feminist material and I gave the OP pretty much the foundation work of modern feminism and I was criticized for it. I'll pretty much say fuck you to the guy again so you may as well neg rep me some more...Anyone who criticizes 'The Second Sex' as some outdated irrelevant feminist text is ignorant and shouldn't be criticizing me, when people wrongly criticize me it usually warrants a fuck you every so often.

Lucretia was just expressing an opinion, one that I happen to disagree with but when you shout people down who are behaving themselves civilly it encourages them to be nasty back, and it makes people afraid that they'll be shouted down next - and that's not an environment that I think is very conducive to learning or developing new ideas or taking a bit of risk with your posts - or really communicating at all.

Its not like you couldn't have expressed the same thing in a way that wouldn't have raised the tension in a thread that didn't need to be tense.


Do aggressive women threaten you?

You assume that everyone else on the internet is a man?


A lot of people get the wrong idea when looking into feminism, liberal/radical etc. Again, pointing a person in the direction of Marxist feminism shouldn't be criticized. Fuck that. Hey OP, check out some works buy Simone Weil.

And there isn't even a coherent, undisputed definition of "liberal feminism" "marxist feminism" or "radical feminism" - these are all contested concepts used in different ways by different people and I don't see how you've done anything to clarify that.

[TC]

Might also want to check out Catherine McKinnon and Andrea Dworkin. I don't necessarily like what little I've read, but they do represent an important movement within feminism viz. the anti-pornography movement that blew up in the 80's.


I would also strongly recommend reading Catherine MacKinnon's Toward a Feminist Theory of the State - it is still the closest thing that anyone has written to a feminist-as-feminist theory of patriarchy (though it suffers from a reductionistic misrepresentation of Marx - but one shared by many or most Marxists so MacKinnon can hardly be blamed)

Andrea Dworkin's writing is not as good as Catherine McKinnon.

[blake 3:17]

MacKinnon's pretty good on everything but pornography. It's too bad that's what she's known for.

Luxemburg wasn't a feminist; Goldman was, but she got it wrong on suffrage.

Read Sheila Rowbotham and Barbara Taylor. Angela Davis's Women, Race and Class is a very readable intro to overlapping oppressions.