File: 1682677627522.jpeg (51.59 KB, 500x500, bookclub.jpeg)
Also to add that if you cannot get hold of any book, either to buy or borrow from the library - here are a couple of places to get PDFs https://drive.google.com/drive/u/0/folders/18h4u7pCQlqHOjEXNKSkrxODDmN-w76wi
or try on libgen
File: 1682683337192.jpeg (337.9 KB, 1597x2551, progress.jpeg)
I know many radical feminists who admire the influential but great fat pseudo-intellectual may not appreciate this book, as it includes most racial feminists as contributors to the problems that have hindered feminism. Nevertheless, it is a valuable and practical resource for any woman interested in feminism and serves the greater good of all women.
there are lot of things in this book that I think will be controversial in 2X but a lot of points of agreement too.
a few of the controversial points:>anti bc pill and abortion
she doesn't shame the use of these technologies but sees these as tools that give the illusion we can be on even footing as men (ie. defy biological processes that hinder us in work and life). I've already mentioned in the MtF thread that I disagree with her conclusion but can also accept that it has played a part in our disconnection to our material reality.>doesn't strongly believe in the patriarchy
she shares a similar view to Nina Power and Juliet Flower ('Regime of the Brother') that we have moved from the patriarchy to a fraternal dynamic. it still acknowledges how women are now competing with men, whilst having sexual differences erased, leaving us at a huge disadvantage. especially going into the "cyborg era". I find this theory quite interesting personally. >believes women's liberation was a result of the industrial era rather than moral progress
and that ultimately this is where things "went wrong". for example, before the industrial revolution, we had cottage industry which allowed women to work from home and take care of their children. post industrial age, women have had to fight for better working conditions for pregnant women and childcare etc.>puts some of the blame on feminists, including second-wave
for pushing for things that have ultimately come back to bite us, such as normalising or encouraging casual sex which has largely benefitted men.
Points in keeping with radical feminism:>recognising sex differences is a vital part of feminism>feminism as it exists today only benefits elite and knowledge class women
this is related to the previous point, that sex differences are far less apparent to women at the top, who will never have to share a prison cell with a man, for example and who have all the luxuries and resources that protect them from forces of nature. working class women do not. >anti-commodification of women's bodies
how the cyborg era and future of AI & biotech will and already has resulted in commercial surrogacy, porn culture, plastic surgery, sex change surgeries and will only get worse for women the further it progresses.
Although I'm not on board with every thing Mary proposes, I definitely think she is bringing up a much-needed conversation. I also enjoy her very dry British humour and level headed approach to things. She steal man's her opposers, acknowledges the gaps in her stances (eg. she is pro-marriage but recognises it's not for everyone and that a relationship built on mutual respect is not a given, unfortunately) and backs up her ideas with research.
I'm in my 30s and have never had the desire to start a family with a man but I recognise that most women probably do, and this is largely ignored in feminist circles so there does need to be a realistic way to navigate this going forward. >>14409
Obviously I've already read it but would love to hear other's thoughts too!
File: 1682705183250.jpeg (289.74 KB, 1699x2560, On the Meaning of Sex.jpeg)
I'm also interested in reading this one, by Ekman - a Swedish TERF. Recently translated into English.
The new definition of sex has been hailed as progressive. But is it really? And is it new? In this groundbreaking book, Swedish feminist and Marxist author Kajsa Ekis Ekman traces the ideological roots of this new definition.
Are you the anon that spergs about fat people being immoral and psuedo intellectual fart huffers a lot >>>/m/198208
File: 1682867357169.jpeg (9.86 KB, 181x278, download.jpeg)
This is a other one that I really liked!
File: 1682877083401.jpeg (121.04 KB, 1080x1350, feminismagainstprogress.jpeg)
does a chapter a week sounds like a good pace? doesn't have to be strict. we can check back in whenever we have thoughts to share.
Chapter 1: Against Progress - let's gooooooo
yeah, it's hard to summarise her position, as it's quite nuanced but ultimately i do not agree with her conclusions on this point either. women always will need and want access to abortions, safe, legal or… otherwise. the birth control pill is a tricky one but I do think it needs more conversation (i'm actually on it myself for endometriosis but wish there was a better treatment option). >also disagreed that feminism only benefits the elite
this is specifically in reference to modern lib feminism. and lib feminism doesn't give a shit about the reality of prostitution. feminism should
benefit all women, and that's her point.
there are definitely things in the book that won't fly here but I found lots to take away from it, particularly about AI and biotech future and how this is going to impact women.
i'm interested to see your thoughts if you end up giving it a go.
Yeah, me too. It’s not like only rich women can vote and have access to things like domestic violence shelters, parental rights, divorce, prosecute rape within marriage, and access abortion in some places. Reads very spoiled elite/rich person ironically to think things like that only benefit the rich, only libfemy stuff only benefits the rich because they can avoid men in womens prisons and toilets, and actually avoid prostitution if they don’t desire to do it. Some people just get too used to having that sort of stuff and think it was given to them rather than fought for. Also, women never promoted the casual sex thing, it was a response to mens actions in the 2000s (think PUA and bachelor culture), men just complain about it now because they realise ‘spinning plates’ = no gf when you finally age out of hot 20 year olds attraction.
File: 1682930785633.jpg (55.09 KB, 850x400, judith-butler-70-43-92.jpg)
But it is rich elite women deciding what feminism even is, they are the one's going to universities and colleges, taking degrees that can only work if you have connections, teaching and writing books filled with meaningless drivel, its because of those troglodytes that troons are justified in their exitance and we are debating what a woman even is.
This is becuse it comes from universities, where everything is an affectation. Everything to do with academia is about self-marketing and posturing and creating an image. This is why I think material analysis is important, because it allows you to assess the durability and likely trajectory of cultural and ideological trends. For e.g Original American racism was foundational to the southern economic order—unfree labor was required to farm cotton, the basis of the whole economy. A very strong moral system of racial domination was then developed to justify that. By contrast, modern "white people are always racist" stuff, etc., is the product of a university system that is failing to justify its own existence (training professionals) in an age of a collapsing professional/middle class, and is as a result thrashing about intellectually, going from trend to trend in search of something that might be a durable moral basis for its future existence. It's stupid and weak, and I don't think it'll stick around, because it has no durable social basis. This is not to say that it doesn't have negative effects.
I feel like the lines about "wahhh feminism is only for elite women" is just a cliche at this point, similar to whining about "white feminism." Like >>14538
said, there is a lot in our modern society that helps everyone and is currently being taken for granted. Hell, progressives in the US got too comfortable with Roe v. Wade and look what happened. There comes a point where women will just have to come to terms with reality and just admit that feminism is not there to help them find a Prince Charming, especially where there are none and that they cannot replace their spine and common sense with feminism. Political reforms that help women gain access to contraceptives and help them accumulate wealth and providing services like domestic violence shelters should be the #1 priority in feminist action, which should come to no surprise that is already what is happening. The biggest stain on this movement is the troonery, whikch is a huge problem and where the criticism of out-of-touch elites comes into play, but other than that? What exactly are feminists supposed to do about the fact that a lot of men do not want to progress with women? They don't want to accommodate women's biology in the workplace (i.e. better conditions for mothers who want to work), they don't want to let go of their madonna/whore complex and their inability to see women as a human being with desires for pleasure during hook-ups, they don't want equity in romantic relationships..etc. Even the most grounded-in-reality, materialist, whatever buzzword available feminism will not be able to address this problem in a way that satisfies women, because what they want out of hetero relations is not going to be solved by feminism but by men developing empathy for women. Feminism can only provide the tools for women to help themselves (and it has) and can only promote alternative mindsets to the usual that is already shoved down out throats (women need a man/women need to be married/women need to pop outs kids)
Samefag as >>14564
, but elite men are the ones who have said that elite women establish what feminism should fight for, so we should oppose what these elite men propose as what is important too, right?
Again samefag as >>14565
(sorry, there’s just too many reasons why this point makes no sense).
> academia bad
So you’re a communist? Men claim to embrace the plight of the common man and shun the bougie elite, but ignore most communists were also elites. Men also claim to be commies but support anti-material shit like transgenderism. Men claim all female-centric problems are bougie because the common male cannot relate to them and hate expending resources on problems that don’t affect them.
> men says men being academics during the times they prevented women from learning means they should be followed as leaders> claim women academics don’t understand the common women so don’t follow their ideals
KEK. The world keeps on spinning.
If it is paki-chan, Christianity oppressed women and is not actually about equality.
File: 1682980044894.jpg (6.25 KB, 190x281, jez.jpg)
All I said was that Judith Butler and her Ilk were idiots who obesseded over retarded overanalyzing theory, that was created by a pedophile who raped children in morocco, those morons shouldn't decide what feminism is for us. It's not that complicated
And I agreed libfem is dumb and bougie, but >>14544
was in reply to two anons saying libfem is bougie too so it reads as if saying it is all bougie rather than just the libfem one.
most of it is though, communism and socialism has never come from intellectuals, it was achieved by men who barely understood it, they took power using populism, force and the will of the people(Stalin, Tito, Saddam, Khrushchev, Mao) whatever you wish to say about the horrors they committed, all of these men were educated urban elites, they came from backwater regions
so why shouldn't the same apply to feminism.
Kek, the majority of people you listed as coming from 'backwater' places to pretend they are the common man, became the so called evil academics. Also, many of those listed didn't become popular and were followed by people of their own will, they had some followers who enforced their ideals using violence. You're really trying to shill that everyone was pro-communist china, russia, etc? Communist russia used stasi to enforce their 'rule' kek. Do you just mean not from the west/America/England when you say backwater? Just because someone is born to a rural family, does not mean they aren't an academic or didn't attend university, they became academics at university. Not to mention, everyone you've mentioned has killed anyone who disagrees with the proposed ideals of communism etc.? If you want to shill communism you can, but pretending that feminism shilled by elites has never benefitted women is dumb, as most women can vote and more as >>14538
>>14527 layed out. The idea that feminist elites have never worked for the benefit of all women is just false, and sounds like trying to shill the idea that only women who don't have power should be followed (so the job never gets done because women don't have retard violent groups to use to gain there rule like the men you listed). And again, by that logic, anything written by elites (which includes 99% of politicians) should be discarded, so we shouldn't have laws, nor the church (because the church was enforced by the elite invaders back in the day).
, but what have these men done for women exactly that they didn't also do for men (or only men)? Not exactly the bastion of pro-women. A lot have made such terrible decisions that fuck women over till this day (Mao for starters).
do you like audiobooks? if so, you can use a free credit from an audible trial (just make sure to cancel the trial straight away so you don't forget and get charged).
And you might be able to get your library to order it in.
otherwise you can probably find cheaper used copies on amazon, ebay, abebooks etc.
ayrt and not a redscare fag. harrington has been on mine and a lot of other nona's radar for years now. just because you
only just heard of her from redscare and have formulated an opinion on her based entirely on that. talk about pathetic.
but:>calls me a moron>thinks Stalin, Mao, etc. were great revolutionaries and anything elite women strive for is never beneficial to other women.
Sure kek. God damn you larpers are embarrassing.
File: 1685796086001.jpeg (27.54 KB, 247x400, IMG_9056.jpeg)
i would like to warmly rec this book from swedish writer and journalist kajsa ekis ekman. sadly, she's constantly boycotted and witch hunted by TRAs for being too rad, swerfy and terfy etc. this book is from 2010 so it's kind of before/early in the modern discourse on "sex work" which is often centered around porn, camming and so on, rather than real life prostitution and human trafficking. ekman is a socialist and always has a great class perspective. i especially love the parts on surrogacy. all in all it's a bit of a tough read simply because it discusses such a horrible and tragic reality which can be hard if you're sensitive.>>14404
what the fuck is this bullshit? i'm convinced 2X is infested with mentally ill moids/trannies from /pol/ advocating for this neoreactionary borderline nazi bullshit while posing as farmers. or as other anons stated it's retarded redscare fans/twitter "tradfems" (vom).
File: 1685796823214.png (525.49 KB, 1280x2024, content.png)
>>15375>i'm convinced 2X is infested with mentally ill moids/trannies posing as farmers.
Samefag, weird day & something is off about all these replies and not only on 2X, >>15390
i think it’s a man tbh, all of the replies are so weirdly spergy but at the same time just slightly vitriolic so i can give the benefit of doubt.
Lmao, love the title.
Did you read it? What's the main hypothesis of it?
File: 1685816806047.jpg (69.63 KB, 675x680, FraHPX7XwAUVodi.jpg)
I think we are just genuinely in a bizarre political time period, where people who have politically have literally nothing in common with each other, hate the current neo-liberal status-quo so much that they are willing to tolerate each other and work together, each side fully believing that when the current political order collapses their side will end up winning.
File: 1685820669556.jpeg (66.1 KB, 640x567, figure-1.jpeg)
I read Demonic Males, and yeah its not 100% accurate. The book largely focuses on comparing humans to different species of great apes, highlighting the contrast between chimpanzees, who display completely patriarchal male-dominated behavior and are sexually violent towards one another, gorillas, who are less patriarchal but still violent among other males, and bonobos, who are considered a matrilineal species. The book concludes that humans should aspire to be like bonobos, who may have started similarly to chimpanzees but evolved past that due to various factors. However, I find this conclusion to be rather absurd. While we are genetically closer to bonobos than other apes, we split from them over 5 million years ago. It seems like the author reached their conclusion first and then used whatever science they could find to support it.
picrel is a chart of caniformia evolutionary speciation, just to highlight the absurdity of using species that are distantly related to each other to prove some sort of sociological point.
The same thing that cause female violence, impulses, yet women are conditioned to not be violent and punished much harshly than men so we can't act out. Don't you realize that a man killing a woman gets considerably less jail time than a woman killing a man? Even though the second scenerio, the woman usually had a good reasoning? (example got raped by the man, abused by him, attacked by him etc.)
Society is very much standing behind aggressive men yet when a woman shows even reactionary aggression, she gets painted as an evil abuser just like how they did to Amber heard or other women who came out about the abuse they faced from men.
At the moment we are working with the Triune Brain model: the arachnid part of the brain, the most ancient and ancestral, deals with the impulses of fear and reaction of flight from threats, and the mammalian part of the brain, which developed later, deals with the impulses of emotions related to anger and violence against threats.
In short the current Triune Brain model posits a "base programming" of mammalians derived from those of arachnids (spiders) where the first reaction to a thread is fear and escaping and second to that, anger, violence, and facing the threat.
That's why Brown Recluse spiders avoid people generally but when severely disturbed and cornered they retaliate with bites.
File: 1685871307940.jpg (305.06 KB, 2200x1000, human-evolution-gettyimages-12…)
It's an argument in favor of humanity: most likely, humans evolved from apes who learned to walk and were likely scavengers. At some point, an ape like ancestor probably discovered rudimentary tool usage by using objects such as sticks, bones, or rocks as weapons, which would have greatly impacted their survival by deterring predators. This increased the likelihood of passing down beneficial genes and paved the way for the introduction of hunting. Those who excelled at tool usage and hunting practices survived and passed down their genes. This marked a pivotal moment in human evolution and contributed to the rapid proliferation of human existence. Therefore, man's inclination toward violence can be compared to that of a wolf's hunting behavior.
File: 1686891576960.jpeg (106.51 KB, 1005x1506, 7f0pc2h75fqmozd7ot9s9fsw1tgs.j…)
File: 1690538482798.jpeg (33.11 KB, 326x500, FC3DC38A-3650-443B-8A73-4F8368…)
Wish I’d known about this book sooner. Hundreds of interviews from Soviet women and girls.Guttural read.
Seconding what >>19519
said. I also found a copy on Internet Archive. https://archive.org/details/unwomanlyfaceofw0000alek
To read the book on IA you need an account to borrow the book but it’s free.
File: 1694849068178.jpeg (25.7 KB, 322x500, images.jpeg)
My friend told me about this book and although it seems quite libfem, it piqued my interest. Have you guys read it? What do you think of it