What are some reasonable books on feminism?

Mary Wollstonecraft
The Book of the City of Ladies

:3

Is there a more basic bitch answer to this question?

No, feminism was never good. Women do not deserve rights, period. The modern "parody" of feminism is just what happens when men can't keep their women in check.

There are none.

The Vindication of the Rights of Women by Mary Wollencraft

Your views are short-sighted and needlessly hostile.

The second sex and A room of one's own

...

Pornography by Dworkin

welcome to Veeky Forums sweatie

There legitimately are none. Feminism is the same as any other in-group vs out-group social clique ideology.

Spend your time on something more fruitful.

Intercourse, by Andrea Dworkin

No memes, she's not what you've heard.

>tribalism is unreasonable

probably would have been selected out of existence by now if it were. instead we see it manifest at pretty much every level of society, despite monumental ideological efforts to displace it.

really extends the dendrites

But that's precisely why it exists, because the universal characterization of human pretends to stand for everything, when it's actually deluded by a belief in a stable singularity. Identity theories, hence, try to destabilize the established hierarchies by switching (one of the executive skills) the as-structures (rabbit/duck, perception) that flesh the skeleton of the objects of the world (as defined by symbolic interactionism). It can't be otherwise, one must be aware of this struggle, of a refined understanding of the irreconcilable complexity through the multiplicity of voices that elucidate the blindspots: our biases, our assumptions. In addition, it stems from the necessity to stop being a place in the world, to stop fulfilling a role in society. It's about being authentic and existing outside the group, but, in order to achieve this, a de-marginalization de-stereotyping process must cleanse the individuals from the collective consciousness and its manifestations through the automatic instances of unconscious reasoning.

>It's about being authentic and existing outside the group, but, in order to achieve this, a de-marginalization de-stereotyping process must cleanse the individuals from the collective consciousness and its manifestations through the automatic instances of unconscious reasoning.

At best you'll just replace one inauthenticity with another. The whole project is a waste of time.

Judith Butler. Sara Ahmed.

Most of feminism's most ardent critics haven't actually spent any time getting to know feminism, same as anything really. The loudest critics are usually the stupidest.

Pretty much.. Sound and Fury! but either way, it's quite valued, it's liberating, it feels much better than the imposed restrictions. I'd say it's a nicer form of life!

I'm surprised no one's written a public hit-piece about the "roastie" meme the way they have with "cuck" or "snowflake".

Camille Paglia

>like Beauvoir for example

Yes tribalism is the highest tier social structure capable of animals.

Perhaps you should consider the difference between man and beast.
You small minded child.

You are a babbling buffoon. How many buzzwords did you force into that?

'reasonable' in what sense?

there isn't much "reason" in feminism to begin with

I hear people mentioning this book at my college.

"BITCHfest: Ten Years of Cultural Criticism from the Pages of Bitch Magazine "

It must be somewhat good, right?

>Perhaps you should consider the difference between man and beast.

The difference is simply one of degree, not quality.

In terms of ironizing--or 'dry wit', as you probably take it to be--you're about as capable as a turkey hen.

You embarrassing git.

lol, it's just my favorite style! :) so connected and organic, tying as much implicit memory as I possibly can. Genius and crazy!

naw pham

might as well read the SCUM manifesto and hang yourself with a used tampon

>The difference is simply one of degree, not quality.
When comparing you it is.

I do not read feminist books.

Weak tea, mate. Something you picked off the counter. Not even worth the calories you expended to type it.

Judith Butler’s Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity,

Have you read Mein Kampf, Hitler's Table Talk, The Myth of the Twentieth Century, or an Essay on the Inequality of the Human Races? Did you spend any time actually getting to know National-Socialism?

I'm right in assuming you're not a Nazi, and what's more have a very low opinion of the Nazis, Nazi Germany, and Hitler, aren't I?

Fuck you

Well, I don't criticise things I haven't read. I have read Mein Kampf. It's shit.

I don't go around denouncing shit I'm not familiar with.

I'm sure there are plenty of people who say fascism is shit, and denounce fascism without being familiar with it. In fact I know there are people who do that.

There are people who do that with everything. They're stupid people.

Looks like edgy, conversation piece fluff. Surprisingly poignant and well rounded. Great author. Helped me a lot to understand female anxiety and the insanity of self degradation as "empowerment" that libfems love to promote.

In which a 75 year old feminist regrets the spooks under which she cheerfully fucked over everyone she loved.

Also:
My Antonia
Eileen by Moshfegh

She was an ugly, fat, man-hating retard.

>Judith Butler
>feminist
men in dresses are not women desu

>reading femlit
>at the dawn of the genderwar

>Most of feminism's most ardent critics haven't actually spent any time getting to know feminism

First Wave: Franchise

Nothing wrong with this, being equal before the law is part of classical humanism, and female votes helped early progressive movements, and very reasonable caveats in social welfare

Second Wave: Equality

Aside from workplace and employment disruption, this was good too. In a world of increasing prices the two parent working situation is sometimes necessary, and no human should have to be held back at work or in the public sphere due to the gender they were born with.

Third Wave: Oppression Boogeymen

The patriarchy does not exist. Powerful women are in positions of great importance across the world, and as the men in power that joined the workforce at the beginning of the second wave retire and die out, equality is being assured. Despite this, we have a new generation of feminists that see specters of oppression everywhere, and feel the need to create a competing identity that targets the male as the enemy. Not only this but because of social media the academic side of this terrible, incorrect argument is seeping into common parlance and behavior of plebs who dont really understand this shit. Thus we have common agreement on things like Rape Culture in a country where rape is a crime punished by 20 years in jail and where sex offenders are basically branded as non-people, all the while the self-same "feminists" make common cause with Islam because of their common oppressor (the global patriarchy), despite Islam cradling the most disgusting, traditionally misogynistic culture in the world. As more women swallow this "pill", the feminist crosses from a reasonable person looking to work and succeed without getting their tits grabbed, to absolutely delusional non-functional children who see spooks and shadows of a mass conspiracy at every turn.

...

>Bell Hooks
Didn't she spawn the likes of Sarkeesian?

Ah, the old out-spook the spooked routine.

>Ideology.

Claiming there's no gender discrimination is silly. There is, and it affects both men and women.

>Didn't she spawn the likes of Sarkeesian?

Sarkeesian isn't a theorist. Why do people claim think she's representative of feminism. It's retarded. She's literally a meme.

That sounds pretty interesting.

...

Of course, but is there a dark shadowy cabal perpetuating the oppression of women?

What trash.

>but is there a dark shadowy cabal perpetuating the oppression of women?

There's a dark shadowy strawman in your post.

>Of course, but is there a dark shadowy cabal perpetuating the oppression of women?

Literally almost no one thinks this, including feminists.

>.In a world of increasing prices the two parent working situation is sometimes necessary
What increased prices? Technology made things cheaper and resources are still plentiful in most first world coutries. What made things more expensive is the fact that people want more toys and appliences, modern medicine is expensive (going to the doctor 60-70 years ago was much cheaper because there wasn't an advanced treatment for everything) and houses prices were distorted because of market speculation and the fact that people don't build their own hoses anymore.

The only situation in which females truly needed to work en-masse is wartime, where there is shortage of manpower for an obvious reason. The idea of working as "liberation" for women is a feminist delusion. It's only a liberation for wealthy or very intelligent educated women who manage to get a good career in medicine, law, etc. while 99% of women get shitty, miserable jobs and end up not having time to raise children like they used to and usually end up as single moms.

The reason why the whole thing is so perverse is that well situated women already had some access to these jobs since the 1800's. You could argue discrimination existed, but things were moving foward. The sufferage and the other 1900's feminist movements of sexual liberation that forced all working-class females to have to work for a living didn't help improve society a whole lot, it just made labour cheaper. It helped corporations more than it did the average female.

>while 99% of women get shitty, miserable jobs and end up not having time to raise children like they used to and usually end up as single moms.

Women have had to work for almost all of human history, apart from the nobility, but the men of the nobility didn't really "work" either.

Women working for the household is just a return to form from a weird period during the transition to a capitalist post-industrial society.

And so women should fucking work. There's no reason why they should be bored out of their brains sitting around at home all day contributing nothing, unless they have more than 1 kid to look after.

>en already had some access to these jobs since the 1800's

This is so naive its ridiculous. While it's true that some strong willed women (almost always wealthy) did make it into the workforce, and sometimes into respectable positions, they were almost always treated like dirt and told they shouldn't be bothering.

Even in the 1960s, my mother as a child was told that she shouldn't bother with education or get a job because she would just get married and be looked after. She was actively discouraged from reading, and told she couldn't go to university. It's something she's deeply bitter about now.

Just because things are technically possible doesn't mean that their realistic socially.

Blame universal literacy for Sarkeesian et al.

>Blame universal literacy for Sarkeesian et al.
>literacy

Youtube + Tumblr/Livejournal brought Sarkeesian to the fore. The "literacy" required was much less than that required by previous revolutionaries.

>Women have had to work for almost all of human history, apart from the nobility, but the men of the nobility didn't really "work" either.
Middle-class women didn't work except for themselves and their families, and today's society could still support that lifestyle.

>And so women should fucking work. There's no reason why they should be bored out of their brains sitting around at home all day contributing nothing, unless they have more than 1 kid to look after.
The fact that most women now only have one kid because they are too busy working their lovely retail job is one of the main reasons we're having so many problems today in western society. Again, 99% of people contribute by working menial jobs. Having some broad bagging your groceries helps society less than if she was at home taking care of 2.3 children.

Caliban and the Witch by Silvia Federici
Patriarchy and Accumulation on a World Scale by Maria Mies
Night Vision by Butch Lee and Red Rover

The only good thing Nick Land ever wrote was called Kant, Capital, and Prohibition of Incest where he advocated for lesbian separatist guerrillas to smash patrilineal kinship structures, and thus expunge all nationalism from the left.

Sorry, I meant to reply to you here >While it's true that some strong willed women (almost always wealthy) did make it
It's the same shit today. Strong willed women and men (almost always wealthy) make it. Everyone else gets a shit job. Yes, women had a harder time than men back then to get into these careers (as I said), but they were allowed in in the first place and things were improving because of enlightenment and liberal ideals evolving.

Your mother may be bitter about 60's discrimination, but plenty of feminists are now bitter because they were convinced to not have children or get married and they are now lonely old women.

The Second Sex is the only feminist theory book that I've read parts of for philosophy class that I didn't disagree with.

I mean, it's hard to disagree with the claim that just because someone has tits and a vagina they shouldn't be able to go to school or have a job outside the home.

Using biological facts as arguments for social norms really is a fallacy.

Other than that, I think feminism all too often degenerates into pseudo-intellectual conspiracy theories about power, masculinity and privilege.

>but they were allowed in in the first place and things

This was usually not true at all. You're showing a lot of revisionism.

>Middle-class women didn't work except for themselves and their families, and today's society could still support that lifestyle.

There was no such thing in feudal times. If you're talking about the wives of artisans. They usually did work.

>Using biological facts as arguments for social norms really is a fallacy.
I agree, we need more blind pilots.

Being a pilot isn't a social norm. It's a job that requires eye-sight or people will die.

>Third wave feminism isn't at least 3/4 conspiracy theory.

I will give you that its more academic proponents present a more marxist style clash of ideology flavor, but the plebs want to smash dat patriarchy embodied by a global conspiracy

Why woud someone spend time reading a book about feminism.

>This was usually not true at all. You're showing a lot of revisionism.

Not that user, but I think you misread him. He said

> but they were allowed in in the first place and things were improving because of enlightenment and liberal ideals evolving.

Which suggests that it was the natural path of liberalism that let particularly devoted and impressibe women into positions they usually weren't allowed into, rather than collective action on the part of women. This seems accurate when you look at various professional women in the latter half of the 19th century, like Nellie Bly or the woman who was the first female lawyer in the US (can't remember her name). And then these women's successes laid the groundwork for later generations of women to enter those fields.

> If you're talking about the wives of artisans. They usually did work.
Yes, they usually worked for their families as I said. Family businesses are a whole other story, and women working in them is healthy to society and to themselves. But again, just like being a highly paid professional today, most people are not small business owners. Less than 1% of people are, really. Also, today's society, most if not all people have easier access to wealth and resources than medieval artisans. We don't really need an army of women for field labor or fish mongering.

>This was usually not true at all. You're showing a lot of revisionism.
What revisionism? Women were allowed in uiversities back in the 1700's. I did say it was harder for them break into careers than it was for men, and I admit some positions were inaccessible, but things were slowly improviong for them before the term feminism was coined. I don't know what else do you want from me.

>This was usually not true at all. You're showing a lot of revisionism.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_women's_colleges_in_the_United_States

>Using biological facts as arguments for social norms really is a fallacy.
>just because someone has tits and a vagina
What is pregnancy

Yeah, and the fact that women can get pregnant doesn't mean they shouldn't be able to do things that men do, anymore than men having dick and balls means they are incapable of doing housework.

Society is a balancing act. We need certain things for it to be healthy. Raising children is a complicated process, and statistically speaking we can observe the fact that families that are composed of a married couple where the woman is a housewife are the most successful ones, as opposed to, say, single women households or households where both parents work and no one has the time for the kids and often can only handle one child. There is a reason why most civilizations in history have divided the labor of men and women in a similar way, and while the reasons for that have partially vanished in today's world because of automation, some haven't, such as the necessity of child bearing and child raising.

You can also flip things and say that women are the ones that should have a job while men should do the housework. This can work for power-couples where the woman is making a lot of money because she has a nice career, but most people can't have that luxury as most people aren't high-paid professionals and can't be.

To the average couple, it is much easier for men to work longer hours in his shitty job while women stay at home or work part-time, simply because men are better at working longer hours and women are better at raising children. From a conservative perspective this is common sense, but if you want a scientific explanation as to why I can only point to statistics.

Modern femminism seems to assume child bearing and raising is also something antiquated and oppressive and shouldn't force women to have different lifechoices than men for the good of society. Hoever, this notion is hurting the very society they are trying to improve for themselves.

A Room of One's Own - Virginia Woolf

Men Explain things to Me - Rebecca Solnit

People should read everything Toni Morrison and Claudia Rankine have written anyway.

The question isn't "what works best", the question is what kind of arguments can be used to justify women not having the same rights and opportunities as men.

And there are none.

Just because a 2 parent household where the man works and the woman is a housewife might produce healthier and normal kids for example, doesn't mean women as a group shouldn't be allowed to never have children and have careers their entire life.

People will choose different things, but they should be allowed to choose.

>the question is what kind of arguments can be used to justify women not having the same rights and opportunities as men.
None really, except reality. Legally, from a liberal perspective it makes perfect sense and I can't possibly be against women having the same exact rights and opportunities as men.

However, societies aren't made entirely of laws but also of traditions and morals. The idea of everyone having the same rights and opportunities should be taught from an early age to children, but certain responsabilities should as well. We tend to praise men who are soldiers for their sacrifice and frown upon people who shit on the military for a reason: because we know we are incredibly reliable on them for defense in times of war. For similar reasons, we should praise women and men who are competent and hard-working and manage to get good careers for themselves, while frowning upon young women who failed at that yet insisted on remaining childless or choose to get a shitty job and a sexually liberated single lifestyle instead of the sacrifice of raising children for the good of society, just like young men who do the same. We still do that today, but less so because of femminism.

(continuing from )

The problem with a lot of the femminist rethoric is that it assumes that women today only have access to these highly paying professions because of femminism, which is patently wrong. It also goes on about the benefits of everyone having the same degree of opportunities as if that merits every single person to end up as a lawer, doctor or engeneer if society becomes equal enough. This is retarded. If everyone could "choose" whatever they wanted, we all would become highly-paid professionals, but the fact that only a tiny minority of us can has nothing to do with siociety being sexist or racist.

Look, I agree with you that rights aren't everything.

But I think that when women choose to be mothers by their own free will, that demands more respect than if we lived in a culture where motherhood was the only thing women could do, regardless of what they themselves wanted.

Hence I think the freedom of the individual to plan and act out their own life is more important than anything.

>genderwar
>'genderwar' one word
>being this unfuckable

> that demands more respect than if we lived in a culture where motherhood was the only thing women could do
Just remember that woman's and a man's individual freedoms are only existent in a society that protects it. If it collapses, such freedoms are meaningless and we go back to primitivism, where might makes right and women tend to suffer much more.

I'm not really a liberal to the extent that I'm not that obsessed with individualism, but I do appreciate the freedom that it brought to society. Just remember that to keep that individualst freedom, there must be a complex society to support it. Complex societies require sacrifice. Sacrifice and discipline is required to mantain freedom, so you're not a slave to your vices. A disciplined society is a free society.

tl; dr; there must be a limit to this hippy anarchist lefty shit, or your society will collapse and you'll be taken over by another, more disciplined one.

Highly conservative muslims will slowly take over europe just like evangelical christians will take over america simply becuase they put women in their place and will outbreed you. If you want liberalism to survive, you should learn to adapt conservative wisdom into your societal vision of western civilization.

this

On Women - Schopenhauer

add this

feminism does nothing to liberate the talk about psychological violence on men from women

feminism does nothing to liberate the talk of raped men inside a household

feminism favorizes the abortion whithout even the requirement to inform the father

feminism does nothing against coerced paternity

feminism does nothing about the inequality favouring women on the dating game

feminists actually do not promote intellectual independence as a men is considered a sexist scumbag as soon as he disagrees with them or even try to nuance their positions

do you still believe that the feminists fight for equality ?

mra pls go

Holy... so this is the power of the manosphere

...

>reasonable
>feminism

They don't do anything about that shit because men, in general, are strong enough to deal with any shit that is thrown their way.

Its only reasonable if your objective is to destroy civilization

I see the wife of Marx is not forgotten at last.

>Angela Davis
>Non-tumblr
At best you could say she's proto-tumblr.

You haven't read the book.

It doesn't pretend to stand for everything, it stands for universal concepts that transcends gender, races, cultures...